7 THE POTTERY OF CHINCHA Dorothy Menzel Contents Introduction......+++ 273 I. The Chincha style.. wee 80 ‘A. The sites and sample. + 80 B. The technology eee 1 80 ©. Chincha fancy ware (Late Intermediate Period 8 and beginning of the Late Horizon) . 82 1. Shapes. seeeee 2 8h High ovoid jars.... 2 aL Squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles. 182 Squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles 2 83 Flasks oo teeeee 2 84 Drum jars.esseeeseeeseeeees 285 Collared jars. 2 85 cups. aoe + 86 Complex rim bowls. 2 88 Bottles... + 87 + 88 + 88 2. 289 ‘Smoked blackware... 2 80 Plainware....+++ 92 Slip painted decoration. 131 D. Chincha fancy ware (probably predating Late Intermediate Period 8)-.eseseeee saeee a) E. Chincha utility ware. aoe 295 II, Foreign pottery in Chincha style burials. 2 96 A. The Ica 9 style. = 2 96 B. The Inca style. 296 IIL, The pattern of associations in Chincha style burials. 298 IV. Relationships between the Chincha and Ica styles......... +202 ‘A. Ica influence in the Chincha style. B. Chincha influence in the Ica style... V, Resemblances between the Chincha and Cafiete styles, VI. Resemblances between the Chincha style and late pre-Inca styles of the central coast at Ancon and Chancay...... 107 VII. The post-Chincha assemblage......ssssseceeeneees 108 A. The sites and sampless....csseeseee . 108 B, The technology...+++++ Srenececcacats 209 C. Post-Chincha fancy ware Boece 109 1, Chincha tradition remains......eeeeee 109 2. Foreign styles.......78 The imitation Inca style.... ‘The Pachacamac Inca style.... Central to north coast style: The Chima style Imitation Ica Inca pottery..... Imitation Ica 9 pottery..+e..csseeeeeeneee South Coast Inca pottery....... 3. The Chincha Inca style. 4. Various. 5. Decoration... D. Post-Chincha utility wane... E. Refuse pottery from La Centinela. VIII. The pattern of associations in post Notes...+..65 ee fee Appendix A. Classification of the Uhle pottery collections from Chincha... ‘Appendix 8. Burial associations of the Uhle pottery collections from Chincha...+.++++ Bibliography....+--+++5 Identification of illustrations.. 127 135 140 24219 Introduction ‘The commentary on the pottery of Chincha which follows is intended to supplement the preceding article on the role of Chincha in late pre-Spanish Peru. It is added in order to present the evidence on which the archaeological inferences related to pottery style made in the preceding article are based. The pottery used for this study was collected by Max Uhle in 1900 and is deposited at the Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology of the University of California at Berkeley. An earlier study of the Uhle collections from Chincha was published in 1924 by A. L. Kroeber and W. D. Strong (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a). Kroeber and Strong's study was the first of a series of reports on the Uhle collections which became classics in their field. The authors' analysis of the pottery from Chincha is a per- ceptive work, and the main part of the conclusions is not disputed here. However, since theirs was the first study of its kind, Chincha pottery could not be seen in the context which later work in Peruvian archaeology has provided. A view of Chincha pottery in this context is a necessary basis for the historical reconstructions made in the preceding article. The purpose of the conments and illustrations that follow is to furnish a description of Chincha pottery which will make it possible to view it in the necessary context, and to compare it more specifically with styles of the neighboring areas. Their purpose is also to dispel the widely held illusion that the pottery of Chincha is so mich like that of Ica it can be considered a part of the same style, This misunderstanding has for long stood in the way of a proper reconstruction of cultural events on the south coast. Kroeber and Strong's study is a summary of what they saw as the highlights of the Chincha styles. The task undertaken here is to supplement Kroeber and Strong's study in the areas which they neglected, particularly in the description and analysis of shapes. The discussion of design is treated more briefly because it was not possible to furnish the necessary illustrations. fortunately Kroeber and Strong have published photographs which give good illustrations of some of the designs. A more detailed design analysis should be published at some future date. Another purpose of this study is to present a more com- prehensive view of the sample than did Kroeber and Strong. Some cor- rections in detail are also added, where misprints or errors in identi- fication of associations occurred in Kroeber and Strong's publication. Other differences with Kroeber and Strong's treatment are mentioned in the preceding article. ‘As mentioned in the preceding article, the pottery of Chincha is easily divided into two major units of association. One is the Chincha style of the Late Intermediate Period (the period preceding the Inca conquest) and the beginning of the Late Horizon (the early years after the Inca conquest). The other is the post-Chincha assemblage of the major part of the Late Horizon (Inca occupation period) and the early part of the Colonial Period.80 The Chincha style “Figures 1-32 illustrate pottery shapes of the Chincha style. All of this pottery comes fron burials excavated by Uhle at cemetery sites B, C and E, located on the dry terrace that flanks the Chincha Valley on the north, above the plain where La Centinela and other important Chincha settlements are located (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, Pp. 8, pl. 1). Site B is the looted cemetery near the seaward, western end of the terrace, adjoining the mound of La Cumbe where Unle specu- lated that the oracle of Chinchacama could have been located. Sites C and E are farther inland, tovards the northeast, Site E being the one nearest to La Centinela and Site C being an undetermined distance in- land from Site E. As Kroeber and Strong pointed out, the burial contents from Sites C and E are strikingly similar, whereas the con- tents of some of the Site B burials differ slightly, This problem is discussed further in section III, below. However, most of the Site B burials are stylistically so close to the Site C and E ones that it has not been possible to observe systematic distinctions in pottery style, with the exception of two burials, B-2 and B-3. As we shall see by its associations, most or all of the rest of the Chincha burial pottery must date to Late Intermediate Period Epoch 8 and the begin- ping of the Late Horizon, covering a tine span probably not exceeding 60 years (see chronological table). Une excavated 23 Chincha style burials containing pottery. Nine of these came from Site B (B-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10). The Site B burials contained from one to 13 vessels each, 36 vessels altogether, as well as four figurines. Nine burials from Site C contained from one to 15 pottery vessels each, 51 vessels altogether, as Well as six figurines (C-6, 7, 9, 10, 22, 12, 13, 14, 16). Five burials from Site E contained from one to 14 vessels each, 35 vessels altogether, as well as four figurines (E-1, 2, 3, 4 and 10). Altogether there are now present in the collection 123 vessels and 14 figurines which serve to define the Chincha style (cf. Appendices A,B). IB. The technolo, Chincha burial pottery can be grouped into "fancy ware" and “utility ware." The two kinds of ware differ in paste, temper, shapes and surface treatment. The differences between fancy ware and utility ware are so great and so consistent that there is no difficulty in distinguishing plain slipped, roughly finished or odd shaped fancy ware specimens from utility ware ones. The term “utility ware" reflects the fact that some of this ware is sooted from use in cooking over a fire, while none of the fancy ware shows such use, Unlike fancy ware, utility ware is not decorated with painted or other designs. All but three of the pottery vessels from the Chincha style burials are fancy ware ones. Fancy ware has paste of medium density and relatively fine sand temper of moderate density. The size range, care of selection and density of temper particles vary between vessels to a limited extent. Maximum oxidation in Chincha fancy ware produces a light toa1 bright orange hue with a slight to medium gray factor, but the firing color varies from these hues to buff to gray. Some of the pottery has a bread light gray core with a buff to orange outer shell. Compared with Ica fancy ware, Chincha style fancy ware oxidizes to a slightly more orange hue without a red factor, and the paste is slightly coarser grained. It is a peculiarity of Chincha fancy ware that it is frequently overfired, resulting in a dark gray color of the paste and a crackling and discoloration of the surface which also destroys the gloss of the polish. Many vessels have a matte, grayish and spotted appearance as a result. Vessels fired in an excessively hot atmosphere sometimes have dull green, thick, glaze-like drops on the surface which appear to be a by-product of overfiring. However, the overfiring did not reach the point where it would result in a distortion of the shapes; none of the vessels in our sample is so distorted. The paste of the utility ware is of an even dark reddish brown hue without signs of overfiring, and the sand temper is coarser and denser than in fancy ware. In contrast to the fancy ware, temper grains are prominently visible on the surface. The surface is smooth but unpainted and has little or no polish. IC, Chincha fancy ware (Late Intermediate Period @ and beginning a3F the Late Worizon; Appendix A, 1) Ici. Shapes By far the most common vessel category in Chincha fancy ware consists of jars with necks. If all jars with necks are counted, including those with special body forms such as flasks, there are 73, constituting 61 percent of all Chincha fancy ware attributable to Epoch 8 in the Uhle collection burials. Chincha jars have a number of very distinctive features. From the way the vocabulary of features is patterned one can see that the Chincha potters classified jar forms into at least five subgroups, each of which usally has a characteristic cluster of shape features associated with it. This does not mean that there are no shared features, or that an occasional exception does not occur, but the regularity of the clustering of features indicates separate categories in the minds of the potters. High ovoid jars (Appendix A, 1.1.1). One very common Chincha jar category consists of vessels with a high shouldered, inverted ovoid body, a large neck, and two vertical strap handles on the shoulder (figs. 1-3, 15). In its most distinctive form the jar body has a very high, prominent shoulder and the lover body is elongated and conical with straight sides tapering down to a very narrow, flat or slightly curved, sharply edged bottom (fig. 1; Kroeber and Strong, 192¥a, pl. 12b, ¢). However, there is a range of variation in shape features, in which the shoulder may be slightly lower or less promi- nent, the lower portion of the body may have a slight curvature in the sides, and the bottom may be proportionately slightly broader and slightly less sharply edged (figs. 2, 3). One example has a concave bottom, a bottom that appears regularly only on cups and hotties (see below).82 High ovoid jars appear in two distinct size ranges. The large group (1.1.1.1) is among the largest vessels of the Chincha style (figs. 1-3), Jars in this group cluster near 30 centimeters in height, with one as small as 21.7 centimeters high and two between 37 and 38 centi- meters high. There are ten such vessels in the Uhle collection burial Jare in the smaller size range (1.1.1.2) include only smell to minia- ‘ture vessels which vary in height from 17.4 centineters to less than 10 centimeters (fig. 15). The canons of proportions of the diameter of the bottom are such that on the small to miniature vessels the bottom has to be exceedingly narrow, varying from a flat bottom a centimeter or less in diameter to a pointed bottom. There are 13 examples of such vessels in the burials. High ovoid jars in the larger size range have very distinctive necks. The necks are distinguished by their broad, high proportions and straight or nearly straight sides, which match the tendency to straight sided, elongated bottom contours. These jar necks are either cylindrical, slightly tapering, or straight flaring. Some have a separately flaring, short rim, while sone do rot. The sides are often not perfectly straight but slightly irregular or slightly concave. One neck has modeled eyes, ears, nose and mouth (fig. 1; Kroeber and Strong, 1924a,pl. 12c). The lip is most comonly flattened, either horizontally or at an exterior bevel. High ovoid jars of miniature size have a different neck form, proper to a smaller jar category, that of squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles (see below). The small jar illustrated in fig. 15 is the only one of the small to miniature sized group which has the same neck form as jars in the larger size range. There are two other common jar categories with different body contours from the high ovoid jars. Bodies of these jars are most commonly also inverted ovoids, However, in contrast with the high ovoid jars, the bodies of the other two jar forms can be described as "squat ovoid." Squat ovoid jar bodies are distinguished from high ovoid ones in lacking the elongated, conical lower portion and the very narrow, sharp edged bottom, They also have different neck forms. Two separate categories of squat ovoid jars can be dis- tinguished. Squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles (Appendix A, 1.1.2). One category of squat ovoid jars has two vertical strap handles on the shoulder, like high ovoid jars (figs. 4-6, 8). Unlike high ovoid jars, the shoulder is never very prominent, and the contours of the lower body are more rounded than those of high ovoid jars. The position of the shoulder is lower on the body than on most high ovoid jars, usually above middle height but sometimes at middle height. The bottom varies from proportionately broad flat, or shallow curved with a blunt "hip" edge, to plain rounded. Bodies where a shoulder at middle height coincides with a plain rounded bottom have near- ellipsoid or spheroid contours and are not properly speaking "ovoid;" this form is relatively rare, however. Most squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles are much smaller than high ovoid jars of regular size. Jars with simple necks vary in height from 13 to 20 centi- meters, and no separate category of miniature vessels is represented83 in our collection. The canons of proportion also affect handle size, and as a consequence the handles on the smaller vessels in this group ‘are mich smaller and narrower than those on high ovoid jars of regular size. Squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles also have distinctive necks. Necks are proportionately narrower than those of high ovoid jars, and the sides have regularly a concave curvature, The neck shape is commonly hyperboloid (i.e. the concavity is in the center and the diameter at the lip is approximately the same as at the base, as in fig. 4). Alternatively, the center of the concavity may be slightly below middle height, or the diameter may be greater at the lip than at the base of the neck (figs. 5,6, 8). There are also differences in degree of concavity, and necks with relatively little curvature resemble some of the slightly curved necks of high ovoid jars, except for the difference in size and the narrower proportions (for com- parison, see figs. 2, 5 and 8). Most of these necks have simple thinned lips, unlike necks of high ovoid jars, but some flattened and beveled lips also occur, ‘There are 11 squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles in our collection which have necks as described above (1.1.2.1). There are also three other vessels which belong to this jar group, but which are distinguished in having a special addition to the neck (1.1.2.2). Between the body and the regular neck there is a large bulge, adorned either by five pointed hollow protrusions where the aides vere pushed out fron the inside (fig. 4, or, in one example, by modeled bird features (fig. 5; Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 12£). These vessels with complex necks are larger than the other squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles, varying in height from 22.5 to 30.7 centimeters, Squat ovoid jars without shoulder handlea (Appendix A, 1.1.3). The second category oF squat ovoid jars lacks shoulder handles (igs. 9-12). Vessels in this group most commonly have no handlk at all, but some have small vertical strap handles between the lower neck and upper body. These handles are proportionately narrower and slightly smaller than shoulder handles on jars. Although the body is also ovoid, and squat in contrast with the high ovoid jar bodies, its contours are slightly different from those of squat ovoid ja with shoulder handles. ‘The majority of the group without shoulder handles has bodies with prominent shoulders above middle height and a distinctive deep paraboloid bottom with a pointed base, as the specimens shown in the illustrations. This is another very distinctive Chincha body shape which is also found in other vessel categories, such as collared jars and bowls with complex rims (figs, 18,'25-27). As in other shape categories, there is a range of variation in the jar body form, and occasional specimens have a broad shallow curved bottom, or a body with horizontally ellipsoid or spheroid contours, like the squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles. Such specimens are in the minority, however, and are confined to the smaller examples which fall within the size range of squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles. Squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles have a much larger size range than other jars.au There are also miniature sizes, The size range of regular sized jars in this group is from 14 to 35 centimeters high, with two miniature ones under 10 centimeters high. Squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles have a distinctive neck form, like the other jan categories. The necks have approximately the same breadth as necks of high ovoid jars, but they are shorter. In contours they vary from inverted conical, like high ovoid jar necks, to concave sided, either hyperboloid or more flaring at the rim (figs. 10-12). In addition there is one specimen with an elaborated, inflected neck with a bulge in its lower portion, analogous in con- cept to the complex jar necks with bulging bases among the squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles (fig. 9). The lip is usually horizontally flattened or beveled toward the exterior, as on necks of high ovoid jars, but occasionally it is unthinned rounded, or slightly thinned. One jar, which in most of its features is attributable to the category of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles, does have shoulder handles and a bottom like high ovoid jars (E-3, 43912; cf. Appendix A, 1.2.3.1.1.2.1). This combination of features is unique in our collection. ‘Two other specimens attributable to the category of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles have unique combinations of features Both ate distinguished in having modeled face necks (fig. 7; Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 124), The modeled faceneck features are very similar to those on the high ovoid faceneck jar, but the specimen in fig. 7 has a protruding, modeled face and small modeled hands behind the ears as well, and the specimen illustrated by Kroeber and Strong shows modeled arms and hands holding the head. Both these vessels also have unusual body shape features. The body of the specimen in fig. 7 has some shape features resembling the most curvilinear bodies of high ovoid jars (for comparison see fig. 3), while the specimen illustrated by Kroeber and Strong is the largest example of a spheroid body (the vessel is 23 centimeters high). The latter example is also exceptional in having a thinned neck rim, while the example shown in fig. 7, has a thickened beveled rim that resembles the bevel in complex rim bowls (see below). It is possible that these faceneck jars are the products of particular workshops, possibly from an outlying district, where the standard jar conven- tions were handled slightly differently or where they were not as well controlled as elsewhere. Squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles are the most common vessel category among the regular sized Chincha style vessels, not counting miniatures. There are 22 regular sized jars and two minia- tures in this category in Uhle's burial collection. Flasks (Appendix A, 1.1.4). Flasks constitute a fourth Chincha style jar category with a specialized body shape (figs. 17-19). The body is ellipsoid in the narrow vertical profile and in horizontal section, as can be seen in the illustrations. Like the first two jar categories described above, flasks have two vertical strap handles85 on the upper part of the body, above middle height. There are two @istinct shape subgroups among the flasks. One group has a narrow ellipsoid body profile (figs. 17, 18), while the other has a more bulging ellipsoid profile (fig. 19). ‘Each of these subgroups also has other distinguishing features. Most narrow bodied flasks (1.1.4.1) occur in a smaller size range than the others and have a special neck form, There are two regular sized vessels in this group, 17.5 and 16.3 centimeters high, respectively (fig. 18), as well as three miniatures approximately 10 centimeters or less in height (fig. 17), The slight hump in one side profile of the specimen illustrated in fig. 1@ is 2 unique irregularity. Such irregularities occur occasionally in the manu- facture of Chincha style pottery. The necks of narrow bodied flasks are short and narrow, with a cylindrical or slightly flaring main section and a more flaring rim section. These necks have such narrow proportions that they might be called "bottle" rather than “jar necks. The lip has most typically an exterior bevel or slight exterior thickening, but on some specimens it is plain rounded or slightly thinned. Thick bodied flasks (1.1.4.2) represent a vessel category of larger size, without miniature examples. There are four such spec! mens in our’ sample, from 20.8 to 35 centimeters high (fig. 19). These flasks have a different neck form fron narrow bodied flasks, one that is approximately like the necks of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (for comparison see figs. 10-12). On two of the flasks the neck is indistinguishable from the other jar necks, while on the other two it is proportionately slightly narrower and higher (fig. 19). This difference in proportions may be intended to match the @ifference in body proportions. One flask in the sample is exceptional in its combination of features (1.1.4,1,2), It is a narrow bodied form, but it is larger than the other narrow bodied flasks (24.3 centimeters high) and has a neck of the kind found customarily on squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles, Drum jars (Appendix A, 1.1.5). A fifth jar category consists exclusively Of small to miniature sized vessels with a body shape in the form of a cylindrical drum (fig. 16). Drums of this shape appear on the south coast from Middle Horizon Epoch 2 on, evidently as an introduction of foreign origin, presumably from Huari. Like wost other jars, the drum jars have two small strap handles on the body slightly above median height, here in the upper part of the flattened drum ends. The necks are like those of squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles, a neck form which is used generally for the smaller Chincha jar categories (for comparison see figs. 4-6, 8). There are three drum jars in our sample. Collared jars (Appendix A, 1.2). Collared jars are a rarer Chincha vessel category which must have had a different sort of use from jars with necks (fig. 14). Collared jars are distinguished from other jars in having a proportionately short neck with a very86 wide diameter, a neck form here called a "collar" to distinguish it from the narrower, higher jar necks, The collars are all flaring ones. The width of the mouth opening is such that the vessels could be called equally well "collared bowls." The curvature, flare and lip profile of the collar match the corresponding neck features of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles. The body shape of collared jars is also like that of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (for comparison see figs. 9-12). Two Of the three collared jars in Uhle's burial collection are distinguished by having shoulder handles, which, however, are in horizontal rather than vertical position, unlike those of other jars. Collared jars have a large size range, varying in height from 10.5 to 29 centineters, Cups (Appendix A, 1.3). Vessels here called cups form another minority group of the Chincha style (figs. 23, 24). These vessels have much the same body contours as high ovoid jars (for comparison see figs. 1-3), Cup bodies are distinguished from jar bodies in having concave (upcurving) bottons that are proportionately broader than the jar bottoms. Like the jar bottoms, the cup bottoms custo- marily have sharply edged borders. The degree of concavity varies from 7 millimeters, as in fig. 24, to an almost imperceptibly concave, neariy flat bottom. The top finish of the cups varies from a very short, everted rim with an outer rounding appearing as a ridged border (fig. 24), to a very low, straight sided collar with an exterior beveled rim (fig. 23). Cups have no handles, but one specimen has two appliqué lugs on the shoulder in the form of modeled maize ears (fig, 24). There are seven examples of cups in our sample. ex rim bowls (Appendix A, 1.4). Complex rim bowls are a moderately common vessel form in the Chincha style, 16 examples having been found in burials from Sites C and E (figs. 25~27; Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. lla~d). In body contours and body size these bowls are like squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles and collared jars (for comparison see figs. 9-12, 14). The normal size range of complex rim bowls is 15 to 25 centimeters in height, with one bowl as small as 10.4 centimeters high. The presence of small vertical strap handles from rim to body, found on two of the howls, shows that the potters themselves made an analogy between complex rim bowls and squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 11a, d). The same kind of handles in the same kind of position appear on some of the squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (figs. 9,10). One of the complex rim bowls has a small concave bottom added to its base, in a unique conbina- tion of features (1.4.1), Rims of complex rim bowls, seen from the outside, resemble cambered rims on Ica style bowls, to which the Chincha bowls are related (see below). There is mch more variation among the Chincha bowl rims, however, Chincha bowl rim profiles fall into at least two categories, By far the more conmon is a distinctive Chincha form which is actually an everted rim or very short flaring collar, similar in contours to the higher collars of collared jars (figs. 25, 26; for comparison see fig. 14), The bowl rims differ froma7 the collars in being shorter and thicker, and in having a broad, flattened rim edge usually cut at a bias or bevel in such a way as to increase the width of the flattening. Commonly the width of the flattening is further increased by having the clay pulled down slightly at the lower edge of the exterior bevel (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. lla). This technique gives the rim exterior the appearance of a low molding. The second complex bowl rim form differs from the first in that the interior rim profile is straight vertical, slightly tapering, or only very slightly flaring, with a flat or nearly flat inner surface instead of a curved one (fig, 27; Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 1b, 4). This rim form is also slightly shorter than the First, so ‘that the collar-like rise is seen only on the interior and not on the exterior of the profile. Most of the exterior rise is hidden by a broad bevel extended and thickened at its base. This rim profile is the one I am calling a "cambered rim," and it has a close ‘resemblance to the cambered rim form of Ica. The Chincha cambered rim appears only on bowls that are decorated with designs showing a close relationship to Ica decoration. Bottles (Appendix A, 1.5). Bottles are another Chincha vessel category related to the Ica shape tradition, as is explained further in section IVA, below. Bottles are distinguished from jars in having a proportionately high, narrow neck and one on two small. strap or fillet handles from neck to body. There is more varia- bility in the bottle features than in those of other vessels, a variability that can be explained at least in part by the fact that these bottles are imitations of a foreign vessel form. Epoch 8 bottles are represented by four regular sized vessels and three miniatures (figs. 20, 21). These bottles are distinguished by having a very long neck with a flaring rim. Bodies are either spheroid or horizontally ellipsoid with a rounded or very slightly flattened bottom, or they are inverted ovoid with a concave bottom. The latter body form resembles cup bodies (fig. 21; for comparison, see figs. 23, 24), Handles vary from a single strap to two strap or fillet handles. Rims vary from a wide, bell shaped flare to a short eversion, and lips vary from thinned to flattened. Of these features, the bell shaped rim, thinned lip, single strap handle and rounded body contours are Ica features, while the short everted rim, flat lip, double handles, fillet handles, inverted ovoid body and concave bottom are Chincha features, One bottle has an additional non-Ica feature, a small appliqué aninal on the handle (1,5.1.2.2). Although there is no strict rule about the combina- tion of these features, Chincha and Ica features tend to cluster, respectively (cf. Chincha feature cluster in fig, 21 and Ica feature cluster in fig, 20). The smaller body size of the specimen shown in fig. 20 is also an Ica feature. The regular sized Chincha bottles are of very uniform height, around 21 centimeters high, with the more Ica-like bottle in fig. 20 being slightly shorter. The miniature bottles are less than 10 centimeters high.88 It is possible that the clustering of Ica features on the bottle in fig. 20 may mean a very slightly earlier date for this specimen ‘than for the rest. However, since most of the features also occur separately in other bottles, the evidence is not conclusive on this point. Other vessel categories in the Chincha sample are represented by only one or two examples each. One of these categories is a plate (Appendix A, 1.6). ‘There are two examples of this form in our sample, one from Site E and one from Site ¢ (fig. 33), both in clearcut Epoch 8 (or beginning Late Horizon) associations. Although one of the plates is mich larger than the other, they share most shape features, and are both made of smoked blackware. ‘The indented or "dimpled" bottom is related in principle to other concave bottoms of the Chincha style, though its small diameter and lack of any edge distinguish it from the other form. The five remaining vessels from the Chincha burials attribut- able to the Epoch 8 style are unique. One appears in a Site F burial containing a typical Epoch 8 assemblage of vessels (E-3). The unique vessel is an inflected vase of smoked blackware, with maize ear appliqué lugs and a concave bottom (Appendix A, 1.11, fig. 91). This form is probably related to an Ica tradition one, but the maize ear appliqués and bottom and lip Features are Chincha ones, as is the use of smoked blackware. The other four unique vessels are all from Site B. Their associations indicate that they belong with the Epoch 8 style, but ‘they may represent the last remant of forms that vere more popular in the preceding epoch. These vessels include a flaring sided dish (Appendix A, 1.7, fig. 30), a small thinned rim bowl with vertical, convex sides (Appendix A, 1.8, fig. 32), a tumbler (Appendix A, 1.9, fig. 29), and a tiered, waisted vessel with a small, narrow neck like those on narrow bodied flasks (appendix A, 1.10, fig. 28). The appearance of the latter two vessel forms suggests that they are relatively conservative derivatives from Middle Horizon antecedents (cf, Menzel, 1964, Vifiaque style of Middle Horizon Epoch 2; fig. 24). The small vertical strap handles that cross the waist of the tiered vessel are a Chincha feature evidently placed there in analogy with squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles, particularly the form with the bulged neck to which the upper tier appears to have been compared by the Chincha potters (for comparison see fig. 9). Figurines (Appendix A, 1,12). Figurines are a very dis- tinctive Chincha pottery category, though they are not vessels. Fourteen figurines were found in seven of the burials from Sites B, © and E, One of the figurines vas clothed in miniature replicas oF woven garments (1.12.4). The majority represents adult females (1.12.1), but one adolescent female (1.12.2) and one infant (1.12.3) are also represented. All the figurines except the infant are made of solid pottery, narrow in profile; the infant is hollow, rounded, and contains a rattle, The age identification of these figures is based in part on more detailed information available on a family89 group of figurines from an Ica tomb (Tonb Tg). The Ica figurines share a number of features with the Chincha ones. Chincha figurines are fired and most commonly covered with a plain white slip. One adult female has additional red and black face paint (1.12.1.2). Adult females vary from 12.5 to 22 centimeters in height, the adolescent female is 10 centimeters high, and the infant is 9 centimeters high. One of the most distinctive features of Chincha figurines is the eye form, which consists of a drop shaped mound with the point of the drop-like contours at the exterior side and circular hollows in the center. The eye form in faceneck jars follows similar canons, al- though there is more variation (figs. 1, 7). Body features are remarkably standardized. All figurines are shown in standing posi- tion with hands folded over the body in front, except the infant, which is shown in seated posture with knees drawn up. Details can be seen in the illustrations published by Kroeber and Strong. In summary, vessel shapes characteristic of the Chincha style include several jar forms as by far the most conmon group. Cups and complex rim bowls are also relatively common, and bottles occur with moderate frequency. All other vessel forms are rare. Among the most distinctive Chincha body shape features are inverted ovoid bodies, especially high ovoid ones with a long, straight or nearly straight sided lower section, and squatter ovoid body shapes with a deep paraboloid lower section and pointed hottom. Other characteristic Chincha features include narrow flat or shallow curved, sharply edged bottoms, used primarily for high ovoid jar bodies, and slightly broader concave bottoms such as appear regu- larly on cups and bottles. An indented or "dimpled" bottom is a distinctive Chincha plate feature, and is evidently a variant of concave bottoms with sharp edges. The most distinctive jar necks are straight sided, cylindrical or flaring ones with horizontally flattened lips or beveled rims, and sone with brief everted rins. Complex necks with bulges and modeled features are also distinctive, as are short, narrow flask necks. Other characteristic Chincha shape features include the use of short vertical or horizontal strap handles on the shoulder of the body and neck; jars with flaring collars; distinctive complex rims on bowls; and distinctive modeled face features on jar necks and figurines. ‘Small appliqués, though not common in the Chincha style, also occur. Chincha vesseis are frequently large, up to 38 centimeters in height. Vessels 17 centimeters or less high, other than special small and miniature forms, are rare anong jars and bowls; smaller sizes appear mainly among squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles and narrow bodied flasks. ffowever, small and miniature sizes form an important subgroup of most jars. IC2. Decoration A very large proportion of Chincha fancy ware is made of smoked blackware. Fifty one of the 118 fancy ware vessels from the Epoch 8-Late Horizon burials, or 43 percent, are blackware ones.90 Kroeber believed that the actual proportion of use of blackware at Chincha mist have been even higher because he found that blackware fragments were exceedingly common in Chincha refuse. Fourteen of the Chincha fancy ware vessels are made of undecorated plainware, and the rest (44 percent) has painted decoration. Smoked blackware. Smoked blackware is used particularly for certain vessel categories, It is the favorite decorative technique for small and miniature vessels, and it is used not infrequently for the smaller sized vessels in the medium size range. As a result smoked blackware is used especially frequently for squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles, which are smaller in size on the average than most other jar forms (1.1.2). Nine out of 14 such jars, including all specimens with complex necks, are made of smoked biackware. Five of the medium sized and the two miniature squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles are also of smoked blackware (1.1.3), Eleven out of the 13 small to miniature high ovoid jars are made of smoked blackware (1.1.1.2), as are all three drum jars, which are of small to miniature size (1.1.5), tvo of three miniature narrow bodied flasks (1.1.4.1) and the smallest of the collared jars (1.2). Other relatively small or low bodied vessel categories where the use of blackware is preferred are cups (five out of seven, 1.3), bottles (three out of four regular sized ones, 1.5), plates (1.6), the flaring sided dish (1.7), tiered, waisted vessel (1.10) and inflected vase (1.11), Blackware is used much more rarely for the larger sized vessels. There are only two regular sized high ovoid jars of smoked biackware, both of them from a burial containing almost exclusively Dlackware pottery (C-14). The largest of the thick bodied flasks is also made of smoked blackware (1.1.4.2), as is the large narrow bodied flask which is composed of a unique combination of shape features (1.1.4,1.2). One gains the impression that smoked blackware was a decorative device used particularly for vessels in size ranges or with body contours that did not lend themselves well to the standard techniques and patterns of painted decoration. Size appears to have been con- sidered partly in relation to vessel form, Thus, most of the regular sized high ovoid jars have painted decoration (1.1.1), as do most of the squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles which are over 22 centineters high (1.1.3) and all complex rim bowls (1.4), On the other hand, the largest of the thick bodied flasks (35 centineters high) is made of smoked blackware, just as the largest of the collared jars is made of undecorated plainware. As we shall see below, plain- ware is used as an alternative for smoked blackware. It appears that in som shape categories, such as collared jars and flasks, sizes in ‘the range of 30 centimeters or higher were not considered suitable for painted decoration, while in other shape categories, notably high ovoid jars and complex rim bowls, the larger sizes were considered suitable for such decoration, None of the narrow bodied flasks has painted decoration; possibly the narrow body profile was considered an inconvenient shape for this purpose. Similarly, only one of thea1 squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles has painted decoration. Among squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles, on the other hand, black- ware and oxidized fired painted ware are used alternatively as decorative devices in the medium to small-medium size range. Five of the smoked biackware vessels show remants of red resin paint decoration. The decoration consists of line or large dot designs painted without accompanying incision on the exterior sides or lip of the vessels, For the most part it is not possible to reconstruct the designs because most of the decoration has disap- peared. Vessels decorated with resin paint include one squat ovoid jar with shoulder handles and a complex neck (1.1.2), one squat ovoid jar without shoulder handles (1.1.3), one bottle (1.5), one plate (1.6) and the flaring sided dish (2.7). The resin paint on the squat ovoid jar with shoulder handles appears on the modeled bird head and wings on the neck bulge (fig. 5). Plainware. As noted earlier, unpainted oxidized plainware is used alternatively with blackware in the same contexts. That is, it is used primarily for small to miniature and oversized vessels, and for squat ovoid jars with body handles and narrow bodied flasks ‘that are not made of smoked blackware. One moderate sized squat ovoid jar without shoulder handles is also made of plainware (LLL). Slip painted decoration. Slip painted decoration appears on 50 of the regular sized Chincha fancy ware vessels (43 percent, not counting vessels of foreign style). It is used mainly for high ovoid jars of regular size (1.1.1), squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (1.1.3), thick bodied flasks (1.1.4) and complex rim bowls (1.4). Tt also appears on one squat ovoid jar with shoulder handles (1.1.2), one collared jap (1.2), two cups (1.3), one bottle (1.5), ‘the thinned rim bowl (1.8) and the tumbler (1.9). Painted decora- tion can be described in terms of different combinations of two groups of features, one of which is peculiar to the Chincha Valley, and the other of which is shared with the Ica style and represents Ica influence at Chincha. Chincha design features involve the use of a chalky white or Light credn slip covering all or most of the visible design surface of a vessel. On most vessels this slip is further decorated with designs painted in a dark brick red or very dark purple outlined with black. The white slip is sometimes of irregular thickness, giving it a slightly streaky appearance, but the pigments are generally thickly applied. The dark purple is made of specular hematite con- taining many tiny silvery particles which are usually, though not always, visible and which lend the pigment a silvery sheen. The design area is located on the upper exterior part of the body. Chincha designs consist of large individual units, spaced widely around the circumference of the vessel in a single row. The design area may or may not be delimited at the bottom by an outline which is placed at op above the shoulder of the vessel. Outlining con- sists of a single black line, two or three black lines, or a purple92 or red band outlined in black. Design figures consist typically of stepped or unstepped diamonds in various combinations of elements, of long, slender lozenges in vertical position, or of bird figures. The stepped diamond and bird figures are reminiscent of Ica 3-4 designs, though the resenblance is not strikingly close. Rims of complex rim bowls and jar necks are almost invariably decorated with a row of black triangles pendent from the lip, and handles are decorated with cross striping. The cross striping consists of the saue designs as the basal outlining of design areas. Vessels decorated exclusively with Chincha decoration are illustrated in Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pls. llc, 124, e. Chincha decoration is graceful, uncluttered and elegant. Its elegance is enhanced by an unusual device, appearing on some of the vessels, in which graceful arcs or triangles in cream over white cross the design area in unexpected ways, as a saddle-like wedge across the top of jars or in asymmetric arrangements (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 12e), The contrast between the white and cream slips is very slight, so that the effect is very subtle and often passes unnoticed at first glance. The cream colored zones are applied with great care and have very precise borders which delineate these areas sharply against the white ground, The omamental patterns of the cream colored zones are independent of the other design arrangements; the rest of the designs is painted over both cream and white areas in entirely separate patterns. The striking elegance of Chincha decoration is not generally appreciated by modern collectors, because of the Chincha practice of overfiring the vessels, which often discolors and otherwise mars the surface (see section IB, above). Designs composed entirely of Chincha features as they are described above appear on 16 vessels, including one high ovoid jar (1.1.1,1,1.2), one squat ovoid jar with shoulder handles (1.1.2.1.1), eight squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (2.2.3.2.2.2.1, 1.1,3.1,2.1), one thick Bodied flask (1.1.4.2.2), three complex rim bowls (1.4.2) and the tumbler (1.9), ‘The thinned rim bowl also belongs in this category, though it is decorated with a plain white slip without further decoration (1.8). The remaining 34 painted vessels among Chincha fancy ware are decorated with various combinations of Chincha and Ica design features, The Ica design features reflect borrowings from Ica Phases 6-8, Some Ica 5-like designs are also present. An analysis of the Ica style is in preparation and must await future publication.? Some of the principal contrasts between Chincha and Ica decoration can be named here, however, Principal design areas in the Ica style have a red rather than 2 white ground, and Ica 6-8 designs are typically unoutlined line designs in black and white. The red is an orange ved with a medium gray factor, giving it a dark, muted appearance, a slightly different hue from the Chincha red. In the Ica style white ground color is used only for narrow secondary93 design bands, not for principal design areas. Ica designs usually con- sist of small, closely spaced elements covering much or all of the design surface, and they are placed in two or more horizontal bands of contrasting colors outlined on both sides. The elements are much smaller than the Chincha design elenents. Ica design figures are con- posed predominantly of two elements, a sinple diamond with a central dot, and a small rectangle with a long vertical outline overlapping the ‘corners at one side and a short, horizontally projecting tail- Like line at the other (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, figs. 6a, b, 12a, pl. 12a, b). Triangular elenents also play an important part (Krosber and Strong, 1924a, pls. lla, >, d, 12a). Rim and lip designs con- sist of contractions of the designs used in Ica body decoration, or of cross lines in black and white on red; they are unlike the Chincha designs for the corresponding design areas. For examples of Chincha vessels decorated with designs particularly closely related to those of Ica, see Kroeber and Strong, 192Ha, pl. lla, b, a, fig. 6a, b. For comparable designs on vessels from Ica, see Kroeber and Strong, 1924b, pl. S6c-e, grr. Despite the fact that a part of the painted decoration of Chincha fancy ware is borrowed from the Ica tradition, none of the decoration on Chincha vessels is identical to that found at Ica. The decoration on the Chincha vessels is standardized into distinctive design arrangements and color patterns, and can invariably be dis- tinguished from decoration appearing on Ica style vessels proper. For this reason the Ica-like decoration on Chincha vessels is here called Chincha Ica, Furthermore, about half of all Chincha Ica de- signs are conbined with Chincha tradition design features in a variety of different mixtures. For example, principal Ica style designs are frequently placed on a white ground, a Chincha style feature not found in the Ica style (Kroeber and Strong, 192Ha, pl. lga-c). The banding arrangement of Chincha Ica designs is distinctive, as is the context and position in which particular design elenents are used. Purple nade of specular hematite ("Chincha purple") is Frequently substituted for red as a ground color for principal design bands. There are also examples where the black pigment in Chincha Tea decoration is made of specular hematite, or where dark purple specular hematite replaces black as a design color. Chincha Ica decoration appears with particular frequency on high ovoid jars (2.1,1.1.1.1) and complex rim bowls (1.4.1) There is an additional distinctive Chincha design of unknown origin. This design consists of large dots or "balls" pendent from long vertical lines. The design is usually painted in white on Chincha purple, and in one example in the reverse color pattern, in Chincha purple on white. A variant in which a Chincha style diamond design replaces the balls is also present. The "Pendent Ball” designs are not outlined and in this one respect resemble Ica designs. How~ ever, the color combinations used are Chincha ones, as is the design arrangement, which consists of large units spaced around the circum~ ference of the vessel. The design is used exclusively in the decoration of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles, where the figures are pendent from the base of the neck and extend to theow shoulder (Kroeber and Strong, 192ha, fig. 7b). The Pendent Ball design appears on five of the squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles in our sample (1,1.3,1.1.2.2). ID. Chincha Fancy ware (probably predating Early Intermediate Period 8; Appendix A, 2) Two vessels in the Chincha fancy ware collection probably pre- date the rest on the basis of distinctive stylistic features. Both are from the cemetery at Site B. Bottle/jar (Appendix A, 2.1; fig. 13). The term "bottle/jar" refers to the fact that the vessel has a small, narrow neck which would be called a "bottle" neck by dictionary standards; the body size and handle form and position, on the other hand, fall within the range of Chincha jar features. The body is in the smaller size range of squat ovoid jars. The body shape is unlike other Chincha vessel shapes. In contours it has its closest resemblance to Ica 5 and Ica 6 bottle bodies (for comparison, see fig. 38). These contours are characterized by a broad, nearly horizontal, shallow, shelf-like curvature at the top, a broad shoulder at or slightly above middle height of the body, and an ellipsoid to paraboloid bottom which does not have a pointed base. The Chincha bottle/jar body appears to be an enlarged version of an Ica bottle form, Its handles are Chincha ones of the rarer form of horizontally positioned strap handles on the shoulder, 2 feature also found on Chincha collared jars (for compari- son, see fig. 14), The neck resembles the necks of narrow bodied Chincha flasks very closely (cf. figs. 17, 18). It differs from the latter, however, in having a thinned rim and pointed lip instead of a beveled rim. ‘The slip painted decoration on this bottle/jar can be des- cribed as Chincha Ica, However, the design arrangement and the design elements are different from those on the rest of the Chincha fancy ware vessels. The design elements and their patterning are identical to a design pattern appearing also in Phase 5 of the Ica style and confined to that phase. It consists of individual black rectangle design figures covering a large white design surface. In view of this design resemblance, and since no such design appears in the rest of the Chincha style sample, it is probable that this speci- men predates the rest of the Chincha style pottery. It was found in Burial B-3, together with a sooted cooking olla (cf. Appendix B). Despite the fact that no other bottle/jar example appears in ‘the Chincha collection, such vessels must have been a standard form in Epoch 8 of the Late Intermediate Period also. The reason for this inference is that an example of an imitation of this form appears as Chincha infiuence in the sample for Ica Phase 8, together with decorative features of the Chincha style; another specimen represents a revived variant of this form datable to the Colonial Period style of Ica (see below).95 Bottle (Appendix A, 2.25 fig. 22), One bottle, made of smoked blackware, is the only pottery specimen in Burial B-2. In body shape and neck features this bottle differs from the rest of the Chincha fancy ware bottles. The shortness of the neck and some details of its contours are like corresponding features found in Ica hottles of Phases 3-5 (for comparison, see fig. 52; Kroeber and Strong, 192¥b, pls, 32b, 83e). The body contours also contrast with those of the other Chincha bottles. They resemble those of the bottle/jar des- eribed above in having a shallow curved upper body, a broad shoulder slightly above middle height, and a paraboloid lower body lacking a pointed base. The neck and body features suggest that this specimen 4s not contemporary with the rest of the Chincha style bottles and is probably of earlier date. Site B, surface fragments. Unle collected a few fragments of broken pottery From the surface of Site B, These fragments predate ‘the Chincha style pottery of Epoch 8. Among them is one fragment of a large bottle or jar with an Ica 3 design on it (4-9701A), The other is a fragment of a cambered rim bowl in the Ica 6 style (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 12a; this fragment is erroneously marked as coming from Burial 8-6). A third surface fragnent from Site B belongs to the Paracas style (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 123 marked erroneously as coming from Burial B-6). The Ica 3 and Tea 6 fragments show with particular clarity that remains of the earlier part of the Late Intermediate Period occur at this site, and that Ica influence is an important element in the earlier phases at Chincha. Both fragments are in the Ica style proper and represent very close local copies of Ica models. No pottery vessels or fragments datable to an epoch preceding Epoch 8 are recorded from Sites C and E, IE, Chincha utility ware (Appendix A, 3). Three vessels from the Chincha burials belong to the utility ware category on the basis of their paste, temper, firing and surface appearance. One of these vessels is a smal) cooking olla with a heavily sooted bottom, ‘The shape of the olla is similar to that of collared jars in fancy ware, However, the collar is much shorter and more everted and may be described more aptly as an everted rim. This specimen was found in Burial B-3, together with the bottle/jan which probably predates the Epoch 8 pottery. The other tvo utility vessels are boxls identical in contours. They are broad, relatively shallow vessels with a wide open mouth and short sides curving into a deep, conical bottom. They have an everted rim mich like that of the cooking olla, and four small Chincha style vertical strap handles from lip to body (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 7g). Handles, body contours and rim are remi~ niscent of shape features of Chincha fancy ware, but they are differently proportioned and result in a very distinctive vessel form. These vessels are not sooted from use in cooking. One was found in Burial B-1 and the other in Burial E-2, both burials with Epoch 8 style fancy ware. Burial E-1 is datable to the beginning96 of the Late Horizon on basis of its associations (see Sections II and 11 III and Appendix B). II, Foreign pottery in Chincha style burials IIA, The Ica 9 style (Appendix A, 4.1). ‘Wo vessels from burials containing Chincha style pottery are in the Phase 9 style of the Ica Valley, a style phase that occurs in Inca associations at Ica and therefore dates tc the Late Horizon. A ‘third vessel from Chincha is a small bowl of Ica bowl size and with an Ica 9 design, but with a cambered rim, an Ica and Chincha rim form ‘that is out of use in Ica Phase 9. This vessel is from Burial C-11 and is not associated with other pottery. Other than furnishing additional evidence that Ica 9 pottery was not infrequently copied at Chincha at this tine, it gives no further information. One of the first two Ica 9 vessels was found in Burial E-1, It is a jar which is sufficiently like Ica pottery in paste, shape, surface finish and decoration so that it could be an import from Ica (4.1.1,, fig. 34). An Ica 9 jar from Ica is shown in fig. 84 for comparison. ‘The second Ica 9 vessel found in a burial with Chincha style pottery is an Ica 9 dish shape with Ica 9 decoration, found in Burial C-7 (4.2,2., fig. 35). An Ica 9 dish from Ica is illustrated in fig, 85 for comparison. The specimen from Chincha must be a local imi- tation rather than an import, because of its orange hued paste and dull, matte surface which are uncharacteristic of Ica ware. Its size is also larger than that of Ica vessels proper. In comparing the Ica 9 vessels from the Chincha burials with ‘their counterparts from Ica it should be noted that the vessels in the Ica sample in the Uble collection must all be contemporary with ‘the post-Chincha assemblage and so post-date the examples from the Chincha style burials by a few years. The reason for this dating is that the Ica burials contain some of the same kinds of foreign and new local pottery which are found exclusively in post-Chincha associations at Chincha. TTB, The Inca style (Appendix A, 4.2), In his field catalogue, Uhle recorded an Inca style plate among the contents of Burial E-1, which has since been lost. He also recorded a portion of "a similar plate." This plate fragnent is preserved and is illustrated in fig. 36. It is of smoked black- ware, a firing technique not characteristic of the Inca style, It is also exceptionally thin walled for an Inca plate. It has a handle in the form of a duck head. Similar duck head handles occur on Cuzco Inca plates as well (cf. Bingham, 1920, figs. 98h, 100c, 101k), The highland pieces are not made of smoked blackware. only one other duck head plate handle has been recorded from the coast to date. It was found in refuse at Pachacamac (Strong97 and Corbett, 1943, fig. 9c). It differs from the one from Chincha in being oxidized fired and painted, and in having the "beak" narrowed to a point instead of squared. The more pointed beak resembles other Inca plate handle forms from all parts of the coast. These common forms are very standardized and are confined to a few variants. The plates associated with these common handles are also thicker walled than the specimen from Burial E-1. For two post-Chincha examples from Chincha which belong to these commonly recurring forms, see fig. 63 and Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 9e- The presence of Inca plates in the Chincha burial furnishes evidence that the Chincha style persisted into the Late Horizon, i.e, the Inca occupation period on the south coast. It corroborates the evidence furnished by the presence of Ica 9 vessels in this and another of the Chincha burials (see above). In view of the burial associations of the post-Chincha assemblage it is necessary to con- clude that the Chincha style cannot have persisted very long in the Late Horizon, and mist be confined to its beginning years. It is therefore possible that the stylistic peculiarities of the Burial E-1 plate fragment are of chronological significance, representing features confined to the early part of the Late Horizon. The other Inca plate forms which are found commonly on the coast occur with some of the same kinds of pottery as are found in the post-Chincha assemblage, These plate forms therefore must date to the later part of the Late Horizon, and the features that distinguish them from ‘the Burial E-1 plate may represent style changes in Inca pottery. There are some Chincha style features which resemble Inca ones in a very general way. These features include the maize ear appliqué nubs, appearing on two blackware vessels in the Chincha style (figs, 24, 31), the pendent triangle design used to decorate Chincha jar and bowl rims, and possibly the Pendent Ball design on squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles. The latter design has a remote resemblance to a pendent ball necklace pattern in the Inca style (Eaton, 1916, pl. VI-2, 3; Bingham, 1930, figs. 75, 76). However, these resemblances are not close enough to justify the conclusion that the Chincha style features represent borrowing from ‘the Inca style; their distinctive appearance and standardization in ‘the Chincha style suggest, on the contrary, that the Chincha features are probably unconnected with Inca influence. In support of this contention, we shall see below that appliqué nubs are common in the late pre-Inca styles of the central coast, to which the Chincha style is evidently related. Uhle saw particular historical significance in these and some far less specific resemblances between, on the one hand, the style of Chincha and the very different style of northern Chile, two styles that he considered a single stylistic unit, and, on the other hand, the Inca style.? On the basis of these supposed resemblances he reasoned that the Inca style had adopted many of its features from that of Chincha. Without more information about the antecedents of the Inca style, however, it is not possibe to explain the reasons for such relatively minor, isolated resemblances. Alternative explanations more plausible than the one offered by Unle are that98 the resemblances are coincidental, or that they are the result of a common origin from Huari style antecedents of the Middle Horizon. III, The pattern of associations in Chincha style burials (Appendix B) As Kroeber and Strong have already pointed out, the contents of the Chincha style burials at Sites C and E resemble each other so greatly that they must form an archaeological unit of contemporaneity, during which the style may be said to have been unchanged. Of the nine burials from Site C, two contained pottery vessels in the Ica 9 style, an Ica style phase datable to the Late Horizon (Burials C-7, C-11). Of these, only Burial C-7 contained other pottery, nine additional vessels, all of them stylistically indistinguishable from the rest of the Chincha style burials. Of the Five Chincha style burials at Site E, one (Burial E-1) also contained a vessel in the Ica 9 style, and in addition, two Inca style vessels. Like Burials C-7 and C-1l, Burial E-1 is therefore datable to the Late Horizon, despite the fact that the six remaining vessels in the burial are indistinguishable from other Chincha style vessels. Since the post-Chincha assemblage, as we shall see, must represent the major part of the Late Horizon (i.e. the Inca occupation period on the south coast) at Chincha, Burials C-7, C-11 and E-1 cannot date later than its early or beginning part. Since many of the style features of the Chincha style vessels in these and the remaining Chincha burials from Sites C and E are ones that appear at Ica in [ca Phase 8, the style phase just preceding the Late Horizon, it mst be assumed that the Chincha style pottery of Sites C and E represents the Epoch 8 style of Chincha, or a style phase very similar to it. It is perfectly logical that this Chincha style pottery should have continued in use in the early days after the Inca conquest. Unless a Chincha style burial contains Ica 9 or Inca style pottery, it is not possible to determine on stylistic grounds alone whether it belongs to Late Intermediate Period Epoch 8 or the begin- ning of the Late Horizon. Some of the burials at Site B are stylistically indistinguishable from the Site C and E ones, notably Burials 8-5, B-7 and B-10. The composition of the rest of the Site 8 burials has peculiarities which distinguish these burials from the rest. When Kroeber and Strong noted a contrast between the burials from Site B, on the one hand, and those from Sites ¢ and E, on the other, they were talking not so much about differences in stylistic detail as differences in the composition of the contents. They observed that the Site 8 burials contained most of the unique pottery shapes in the Chincha collection." When they talked of Site C pottery being "identical with the Late Chincha ware from E 1-4," they evidently had in mind not only the appearance of individual vessels, which they mentioned, but also the composition of the con- tents of each burial.® This observation on the differences in burial contents is an important one; the differences may have either chronological or social significance. They reflect the fact that the pottery assemblages in the Chincha style burials from Sites c and E,99 and in sone of the burials from Site B, have a consistent composition, appearing in the form of sets.© A set is recognized in the consistent recurrence of certain vessel shapes in the Chincha burials, usually in relatively consistent proportions. These consistencies suggest that these vessel shapes were considered to form the basic range of shapes for different uses or statuses which should be represented in a Chincha burial. The largest Chincha burials at all three sites contained from nine to 15 vessels each (Burials 3-5, C-6, C-7, 0-9, C-1¥, E-1, E-2 and E-3), Although there are regularities in the burial composition, each Chincha burial is also unique in having some individual pecu- liarities, There are some variations in the numbers of the standard vessel forms represented; in some burials miniatures are used as the exclusive representatives of a standard shape category; and in some burials one or more of the standard vessel forms are omitted and may be substituted by an increased number of other standard forms or of rarer, special forms auch as foreign ones. The standard number of vessels for a basic set is nine or ten. Additional vessels are represented by more than the usual nunber of duplicates of the set shapes, or by the addition of more miniatures or rarer shape cate- gories, including foreign forns. Despite the fact that no two of the burials are identical in content, they share so many consistent features that the existence of the concept of a basic set on part of the Chincha potters is probable. The consistent repetitions far outnumber the variations, while the variations’ are unique and cannot be described in terms of patterns on basis of the present sample. A basic set includes the following shape categories in approxi- mately the following numbers: One or two high ovoid jars (1.1.1), one or tvo squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles (1.1.2), one or two squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (1.1.3), one flask (1.1.4), one cup (2.3) and one complex rim bowl (1.4); it also includes one figurine (1.12). Any one of these pottery forms may be represented by more than the usual number, however, or, on the other hand, may be omitted. In the large burials from one to three of the rarer forms may be omitted, or one of the more common forms and two of the rarer ones. The only burial with the complete set without the addition of other forms is Burial C-1s, Even in this burial there are unique variations. For example, there is only one squat ovoid jar in each of the two categories of such jars; instead, there are three complex rim bowls, There is also a larger than usual number of figurines. This burial is also exceptional in that all the pottery except the complex rim bowls is made of smoked blackware, including the only such examples of high ovoid jars of regular size. Since there is no example of a complex rim bowl of smoked blackware in the entire sample it is possible that these bowls were never fired in this mapner, thus explaining this exception in Burial C-14, The pre- dominance of smoked blackware in this burial may represent personal taste, a special social connection with Cafiete where smoked black-100 ware is more common than at Chincha, or some other factor, including coincidence. Burials B-5, C-6, C-7, C-9, E-1 and E-3 all come close to con- taining the basic set of pottery forms, but each also has its unique variations. Burial B-5 is the only buriel from Site B large enough to contain a complete basic set, The contents of this burial come close to constituting a full set. Its special features consist of the absence of a flask, a complex rim bowl and a figurine, and the presence of additional miniatures of the high ovoid jars and of bottles, the latter a relatively rare form not included in the basic set. Burial C-6 does not contain a figurine, but otherwise it con- tains the basic set without special variations or additions. However, one of the squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles is one of two in the collection with a face neck and sone unique body features. Burial C-7 lacks a squat ovoid jar without shoulder handles, and instead contains two additional thick bodied flasks, which may have been con- sidered substitutes. This burial also lacks a cup and figurine. Instead, it contains a bottle and an Ica 9 dish, both relatively rare forms in the Chincha burials. Since both these forms have Ica affiliations, it is possible that the person buried here had some special affinities with Ica. The only vessel form missing in Burial ©-9 for completion of the basic set is a cup. Exceptional features of this burial include a larger than ordinary number of jars, and the presence of two of the three collared jars of the entire Chincha sample. It is possible that these special features may have some- ‘thing to do with the occupation of the individual who was buried. At Site E, Burial E-1 lacks both a squat ovoid jar with shoulder handles and a cup. Instead there is a utility bowl and three vessels of foreign style, including an Ica 9 jar which may have been imported from Ica, and two Inca plates probably made locally or at least on the coast. This unusually large number of vessels of foreign style also suggests some special regional or social affilia- tion of the individual who was buried. Alternatively, it may reflect changes in the concept of the basic set after the Inca conquest. Burial E-3 lacks an example of a high ovoid jar, and instead has a larger than ordinary number of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles. This burial is also exceptional in containing an unusual number of complex rim bowls, as well as the only example of an inflected vase. Burial E-2 deviates more seriously from the basic pattern than the rest in lacking both forms of squat ovoid jars, as well as a flask and a figurine, The absence of two of the three most common jar forms is exceptional. There is a substitution, however, in the Increased number of high ovoid jars of small to miniature size, including the largest specimen in this category in our sample, and by the presence of a drum jar, A plate and utility bowl are additional rare forms which do not form part of the basic set. The rest of the Chincha burials ali contain fewer vessels. The contents of the burials from Sites C and £ suggest that these101 burials are abbreviated versions of the larger ones. The smaller burials at Sites C and E contain from one to three vessels each (C-10, C-1l, C-12, C-13, C-16, E-4 and E~10), All but one of them contain one or two vessels from the basic set. ‘wo contain, in addition to a vessel form from the set, a rarer, but not unique form, one a plate and the other a bottle (C-12, E-4).' One contains only an imitation Ica 9 vessel (C-11). The contents of the Site B burials represent a special problem, as pointed out by Kroeber and Strong, Although all of the Site B burials assigned here to Late Intermediate Period Epoch 8 (B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-10) contain at least one vessel of the kind found in Chincha style burials from Sites C and E, almost all of them contain in addition either a rare or a unique vessel form. ‘The only exception is Burial 3-7, which contains two vessels from the basic set, As we have seen above, the larger Burial B-5 is also well within the range of Site C and E burials in contents. Burials B-1 and B-10 contain one or two specimens with a rarer, but not uncommon, bottle form, The bottle in Burial B-10 has decoration and shape features like those found in the Site C and E burials. The Burial B-1 bottle, however, has some shape features unique in the sample, causing this bottle to resemble Ica 6-8 bottles more closely than any found at Sites C and E. It is therefore possible that Burial B-1 may be of very slightly earlier date than the rest, though the evi- dence is insufficient to affirm this at present. Burials B-4, B-6 and B-8 all contain one or more unique vessels not found at Sites C and E. These include the tiered, waisted vessel, tumbler, flaring sided dish and thinned rim bowl. The first two represent recognizable Middle Horizon derivatives. The significance of this pattem of associations is at present not clear, but it may signify that several of the Site B burials are very slightly earlier in date than the burials of Sites C and E, dating perhaps to the beginning of Epoch 8 or even to Epoch 7. This hypothesis is strengthened by the presence of two Site 8 burials containing pottery with shape and design features uniike those found in the rest of Chincha pottery, and which resemble features of Ica phases predating Epoch 8 (B-2, B-3), Furthermore, Uhle collected pottery fragments from the surface of Site B which are in the style of Ica Phases 3 and 6 and unquestionably predate Epoch 8. ‘The additional absence of any evidence of Late Horizon associations at Site B contributes to ‘the impression that Site B was a cemetery in use before the ceme- tenies at Sites C and E, though there may have been a slight overlap in time. The Site B burials that are stylistically indistinguishable from the earliest Site C and Site E burials are probably the latest ones made at the site. The Site C and E cemeteries may have served as replacements for the Site B one.102 IV. Relationships between the Chincha and Ica styles IVA, Ica influence in the Chincha style. In the light of the preceding review of the Chincha style, we are now in a position to examine the relationships between the Chincha and Tea styles. Some of these relationships have already been mentioned in the course of the preceding discussion. Ica tradition shapes are illustrated in figs. 37-46 and fig. 52. Figs. 37-46 represent all the fancy ware shape categories of Ica Phase 6, Phase 6 furnishes a base point for Ica influences in the Chincha style, since most Ica loan features in the Chincha style of Epoch 8 reflect a mixture of Ica 6, 7 and § features. Ica tradition shapes of Ica Phases 7 and 8 are recognizably part of the Ica 6 shape themes illustrated in figs. 37- 46, although by Phase 8 most of them appear with some modifications in shape features. These modifications are of relatively minor nature, however. It will be readily apparent that the Ica and Chincha shape tra- ditions are fundamentally distinct, with three exceptions, nanely the bottles and complex rim bowls, as noted earlier, and the drum jars. The great bulk of Ica style pottery consists of small dishes, vessel, forms that are entirely absent from the Chincha style (figs. 41-43).7 All other Ica vessel categories are mich rarer, Flaring cup vessels such as the one illustrated in fig. 40 represent a variant of the Ica dish tradition. Body size of Ica vessels is remarkably standardized. Most Tea vessels have a body height clustering around 7 centimeters and not falling outside a range of variation betwen 6 and 8 centineters, This is in marked contrast to the much greater range in size and much larger number of larger sized vessels in the Chincha style. Characteristic Ica shape features include rounded bottoms on jars, bottles and most dishes, and broad, near-flat or flat bottoms on a few dishes, Bodies of regular sized Ica jars are invariably inverted pear shaped in vertical section and elliptical in horizontal section (the narrower jar profile is indicated by dotted lines in fig. 37). Small jar and bottle bodies are horizontally ellipsoid or near-ellipsoid, with a broad shoulder at middle height. Cambered rim bowls of normal Ica 6-7 size have a body shape similar to bottles, with the shoulder at approximately middle height. Jar necks flare widely into a bell shaped rim. Lips are thinned on bottle and smali jar necks and on some dishes and bowls, and are broad, vertically flattened on large jars and other dish forms. Cambered rims appear on bowls and some dishes with characteristic Ica fea- tures. There are no faceneck jars in the Ica style. Every one of these features contrasts with the corresponding Chincha on The only shape in the Ica style which has approximately the size range of Chincha style vessels is the pear shaped jar illustrated in fig. 37. To a certain extent the Ica jars also resemble Chincha ones in body contours and neck form. The Ica jar body resembles inverted ovoid Chincha jar bodies, and the neck resembles some necks of squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles in the Chincha style (for comparison, see fig. 10). However, there103 are very distinctive differences in body contours, neck contours, and rim and lip profiles, The Ica lip is broader and invariably at a vertical or near vertical angle (for comparison, see figs. 9-11, 14). No Chincha jar has a body elliptical in horizontal section. The partial resemblance between Ica and Chincha jars can be explained by the fact that they are derived from the same prototypes in the Huari styles of the Middle Horizon (for comparison, see Menzel, 1964, figs, 5b, 7b, 0b, 18, 20, 21). There is ample evidence for the local derivation of the Ica jars from Middle Horizon antecedents. Chincha jar shapes have sufficient resemblances to the Middle Horizon forms so that a relation- ship to the latter by tradition must be supposed also. However, the derivations of the Ica and Chincha forms are evidently independent ones. Only the slightly greater similarity between squat ovoid Chincha jars without shoulder handles and the Ica jars suggests some direct exchanges between Ica and Chincha during the Late Inter- mediate Period. There is one other large Ica vessel in our sample, the cambered rim bowl shown in fig. 44. This vessel is comparable in size to Chincha complex rim bowls (for comparison, see fig. 25). However, its size is unique in the Ica 6-8 sample. All other Ica cambered rim howis of Phases 6-7 conform to the small Ica size standard (fig. 46). Thi large Ica 6 bowl represents a conservative survival from complex rim bowls of Ica Phases 4-5. The body contours of the Chincha bowls and ‘the Ica 4-5 bowls are similar but not identical, and the same applies ‘to the rim forms. ‘The more common complex Chincha bowl rims shown in figs. 25 and 26 resemble Ica 4-5 bowl rims in some of their features. It therefore appears that the complex rim bowl tradition was intro- duced to the Chincha style as an earlier Ica loan feature, and that most of the Chincha bowls of Epoch 8 are local derivatives of the earlier loan forms. Cambered rims in Ica Phase 6 have a close resemblance to Chincha cambered rims proper, as shown in fig. 27 (for Ica rims, see figs. 42, 44, 46). Cambered rims proper are found as a less common rim variant of Chincha complex rim bowls (see above). The Ica 6 rims differ from Chincha cambered rims in having a broader, thicker, more prominent exterior bevel. More clay is added to the exterior of the beveled rim surface, resulting in a prominent horizontal or near- horizontal projection at the base. The resemblances between the Ica 6 and Chincha cambered rims indicate additional stylistic exchanges post-dating those reflected in the more common Chincha complex rim bowl variant. The resemblance betweer Ica 6 and Chincha bottles can be appre- cfated by comparing fig. 38 with figs. 20 and 21. The closest resemblance is between the Ica bottle and the Chincha bottle shown in fig. 20, It is also possible to recognize how Chincha shape features are used to modify the Ica tradition bottle form by comparing figs. 38 and 21. The resemblance of the bottle shown in fig. 22 to Tea bottles of earlier phases is discussed in an earlier section (section ID).Low Bottles with drum shaped bodies are present in the Ica style and are analogous to Chincha drum jars. The two forms are undoubtedly related, although the nature of the relationship is not clear at present. Body proportions, neck form and handles distinguish the Iea and Chincha variants (cf. figs. 16 and 99). The Ica form usually has a bottle neck and bottle handle rather than a jar neck and jar handles, and the body proportions of the Ica drum bottles are higher and less wide than those of the Chincha drum jars. The Ica bowl illustrated in fig. 45 is a derivative of the cumbrous bowl tradition of the Middle Horizon (for comparison, see Menzel, 1964, figs. 28, 29). No comparable vessel form is present in the Chincha style collection. ‘two additional Chincha vessels represented by a single example each are related to Ica forms. One is the inflected vase shown in fig. 31, An inflected vase of much the same size and body contours, but with a rounded Ica bottom and unflattened Ica lip, is represented by a single example in Ica Phase 6 (Mason, 1957, pl. 80A, bottom row, second from left), The Ica bottle lacks the maize ear appliqué lugs of the Chincha one, A Colonial Period revival of this form at Ica is shown in fig. 92. The second vessel form showing Ica relations is the Chincha tunbler shown in fig. 29. There is no comparable pottery form in the Ica style, but there are silver and gold tumblers of simi- lar shape and lip form in Ica Phase 6 (Uhle collection from Ica, Burial Th-1; Root, 1949, figs. 11f, 4, 12e-h). Furthermore, the Chincha pottery tumbler has the same design in the same position as one of the Ica 6 metal tumblers (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 13b; Root, 1949, fig. 12h), The principal difference is that the Chincha design is painted on whereas the Ica designs are hammered in relief into the metal. The Chincha tumbler probably is a pottery copy of metal tunblers which may have been used with equal frequency and in very similar form at Ica and Chincha, In summary, Chincha and Ica resemblances in vessel form are con- fined in the main to complex nim bowls, bottles and drum jars. The Tesemblances in the first two categories, at least, must reflect Ica influences at Chincha, These forms have’a long, uninterrupted history of development at Ica, They are found in continuous distribution within the area of influence of the Ica style, both to the north and south. The bowls and bottles have not been recorded north of Chincha, The Chincha forms show a good deal of variability. This variability in part reflects experiments in substituting Chincha for Ica shape features; in part it also reflects repeated Ica influences entering Chincha in Successive phases and undergoing local modifications. The resemblances between Ica and Chincha jars, on the other hand, probably do not reflect exchange of influences, except possibly in a minor way as regards squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles, Rather, the resemblances that exist can be explained by common derivation from the same Middle Horizon antecedents. Ica decoration exerts more influence on Chincha pottery than do Ica shapes, though it too cannot be said to dominate the Chincha style. Chincha Ica decoration appears on only 29 percent of Chincha fancy ware105 vessels. 0n most of the vessels the Ica-related design features reflect influences of Ica Phases 6-8, either in combination on the same vessel or on different vessels in the same burial. This pattern of associa~ tions indicates the contemporaneity of these features at Chincha, in contrast to Ica, where they do not occur in association. It means that some of the Ica designs copied by Chincha potters in earlier phases were maintained at Chincha with greater conservatism than at Ica. Some Ica 5 design features also appear, but since they are features that also survive as a rare form of decoration in Ica Phase & they need not reflect survivals of influences received directly during Ica Phase 5. ‘There is only one vessel, the bottle/jar (fig. 13), which has an Ica 5 design that does not survive in Ica Phase 6 (see section ID). Ica~ related decoration is not found in the pottery styles north of Chincha, IVB. Chincha influence in the Ica style. “Chincha influences in Ica Phases 5, 6 and 7 are not comparable in amount or kind to Ica influences at Chincha. In Ica Phase 6 Chincha features do not appear on regular Ica style vessels. However, a small number of small and miniature vessels was nade in imitation of Chincha forms. None of these vesse2 shapes forms part of the Ica tradition. The imitations have so great a resemblance to the Chincha style pottery in the Uhle collection that one must conclude that the Epoch 6 phase of the Chincha tradition must have been very similar to ‘the Chincha phase of Epoch 8 and the beginning of the Late Horizon. Several Chincha shape and design features usually appear in combination with Ica features on the Ica § imitations of Chincha forms, so that the vessels can be recognized as heing of local manufacture at Ica. The small collared jar shown in fig. 47 is a particularly clear example (for comparison, see fig. 14). The thinned rim bowl in fig. 48 is an imitation of the Chincha bowl shown in fig. 32. The flaring sided dish in fig, 49 is gn imitation of the Chincha dish in fig. 30. The drum shaped vessel in fig. 50 has a jar neck and lacks ‘the bottle handle characteristic of the Ica form, and the long, narrow body proportions also resenble those of Chincha drum jars (for com- parison, see fig. 16). The small flask shown in fig. 51 is a vessel form foreign to the Ica tradition and must therefore reflect Chincha influence, even though the neck and handle are in the Ica style, as is the decoration. Chincha design features appearing with these shapes include the use of Chincha purple, a pigment entirely foreign to the Tea tradition; it appears in the decoration of the collared jar and the thinned rim bowl. These two vessels and the flaring sided dish also have other design features indicating Chincha influence, such as Purple designs outlined in black, the use of white ground for Principal design areas, and Chincha Ica banding. Resemblances in features between Ica 7 pottery and the Chincha style are only slightly more extensive. However, in Ica Phase 8 Chincha style features appear in large numbers in regular sized vessels from Ica and constitute an integral part of the new style phase of Ica (figs. 53-58). Body sizes of vessels increase to Chincha pro- portions. The Ica 8 cambered rim bowl in Fig. 53 falls within the106 size range of Chincha bowls. It also has a narrower, less prominent rim bevel, with a shallower slope than the traditional Ica canbered rims, resembling Chincha cambered rims in these features (for comparison, see figs. 27, 42, 44 and 46), The Ica 8 bottle/jar in fig. 55 represents an imitation of the Chincha form shown in Fig. 13; it has Chincha features in decoration as well as shape, including the use of Chincha purple (cf. Kroeber and Strong, 1924b, pl. 34c), The Ica @ faceneck jar shown in fig. 54 represents an imitation of Chincha faceneck jars, and there are Chincha features in the lip and rim profile and decora- tion. The body represents an enlargement of Ica bottle bodies, how- ever (Kroeber and Strong, 1924b, pl. 3%c; for comparison, see figs. 1, 7). The jar shown in fig. 56 Is an Ica 6 imitation of Chincha style squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles (for comparison, see figs. 10-12). The bottles in figs. 57 and 58 are enlarged variants of the Ica bottle tradition with a conbination of Ica and Chincha features in shape and design. One gains the impression that imitation Chincha pottery is as common or nearly as common in Ica Phase 8 as the more traditional Ica pottery forms. Although our sample for Ica Phase 8 is comparatively small, the Ica 8 style is reflected in the revival style of Ica Phase 10 of the Colonial Period. At this time the Chincha style has been out of use at Chincha for some time, Nevertheless, in Ica Phase 10 there reappear Chincha style forms combined with Ica style features as ‘they appear in Ica Phase 8 (figs. 88-91, 93-96). For comparison, see the flasks shown in figs. 88 and 18; the cambered rim bowls, with particular attention to body size and rim profile, in figs. 89, 53 and 27; the bottle/jars in figs. 90, 55 and 13; the enlarged bottle form in figs. 93 and 57; the inverted ovoid jars in figs. 94 and 1-3; the cups in figs, 95, 23 and 24; and the collared jars in figs. 96 and 18, The repeated occurrence of imitation Chincha forms in Ica Phase 10 reflects the popularity which the use of such imitations must have reached in Ica Phase 8. V, Resemblances between the Chincha and Cafete styles If we compare Chincha style pottery with Cafete style pottery illustrated by Kroeber, we find that there are strong resemblances, to the point where the Cafiete style could be considered a variant of the Chincha style (Kroeber, 1937, pls. LXXXII-LXXXIV, LXXXV-5). However, one is struck by the fact that the resemblances between the Cafiete and Chincha styles rest precisely in those features and vessel categories which distinguish the Chincha style from the Ica one, and that Ica features are almost entirely absent from the Cafiete inventory. The principal shape categories shared by the Chincha and Cafiete styles are high ovoid jars, both in their regular sized and small to minia- ture forms, and flasks. Faceneck jars are also present in the Cafiete style. The Cafiete figurine illustrated by Kroeber is identical to Chincha figurines (Kroeber, 1937, pl. LXXXV-5). Kroeber has stgted succinctly in what ways Cafete pottery differs from that of Chincha.® There is an even larger proportion of blackware in the Cafiete style than in the Chincha style, and painted pottery is very rare at Cafete. The manufacture of Cafiete pottery exhibits less107 care, the paste being coarser, the shaping less regular and the firing Jess controlled. The little painted decoration to be found is the Chincha variant without Ica features (Kroeber, 1937, pl. LXXXIV-1, 2). One gains the impression that the Caflete valley shared that part of the Chincha pottery tradition which most distinguishes the Chincha style from that of Ica, and that the leadership in pottery manufacture of this stylistic tradition rested at Chincha in the time of Late Intermediate Period Epoch 8. On the other hand, the Chincha and Cafiete styles are strongly divided by the presence of Ica-related loan features at Chincha which are not found at Caflete. Additional dis- tinctive Chincha vessel forms, such as squat ovoid jars without shoulder handles and cups, are also absent from the Cafiete sample. VI. Resenblances between the Chincha style and late pre-Inca styles of the central coast at Ancén and Chancay The pottery called Late Ancén II by Strong and the style called Chancay Black-on-White by Kroeber also show resemblances to Chincha style pottery, although the resemblances are not as close as those between the Chincha and Cafiete styles (Strong, 1925, pls. 42, 433 Kroeber, 1926, pls. 80-82). Just as between the Chincha and Cafete styles, the greatest resemblance between the Chincha and central coast styles is in the jar forms. Jars are the most common vessel form in the central coast styles, as in the Chincha style. The central coast jars are regularly decorated with two vertical strap handles, as, the Chincha ones, and their size range is approximately that of the Chincha jars. Although the jar bodies most commonly have a less prominent shoulder than Chincha jar bodies, they have the same high, narrow proportions that distinguish Chincha high ovoid jars. The main difference is that central coast jars are usually vertically ellip- soid rather than inverted ovoid. Flat bottons are much rarer among the central coast forms, but there is sone similarity in the necks. Straight flaring necks similar to high ovoid jar necks in the Chincha style are common at Anc6n and Chancay. It is also very common to find bulged necks on Ancén and Chancay jars, both in the form of a simple bulge and with an added flaring neck above the bulge. Double bulge necks also appear. These neck forms share features with the complex neck jars of the Chincha style. The resemblances between jars give the impression that the central coast jars form a divergent branch of the sane jar tradition that is found at Chincha and Cafiete. Although both traditions go back unmistakeably to common Middle Horizon antecedents, there are additional resemblances that cannot be explained in terms of such antecedents, and which must be due to post-Middle Horizon exchanges. These shared features are not found in the Ica jar tradition. ‘The Chincha and central coast styles also share some less common features. For example, both in neck and body form the Ancén jar shown by Strong on pl. 42b is remarkably similar to some of the Squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles in the Chincha style. Like most of the Chincha jars of this kind, the Ancén specimen is of smoked blackware. A small appliqué animal such as is found not108 uncommonly on Ancén and Chancay handles also appears on the handle of one of the Chincha bottles (Appendix A, 1.5.1.2.2). Appliqué nubs on the body, such as appear rarely in the Chincha style, appear with greater frequency in the Anc6n and Chancay styles. A regular vessel form in the Ancén and Chancay styles is a convex sided bowl very similar to the thinned rim bowl in the Chincha style. A tiered, waisted jar from Ancén is particularly similar to the tiered, waisted vessel from Chincha (Strong, 2925, pl. 42c; for comparison, see fig. 28). And finally, the modeled faceneck and figurine face features of the Chincha style resemble corresponding features of modeled face necks of the Chancay style. In addition to the resemblances in shape, there are some re- markable resemblances in pigmentation and firing. Anc6n and Chancay pottery is even more drastically overfired than Chincha style pottery, with the same results, including the green glaze coagulations. Unlike the Chincha vessels, Ancén and Chancay ones are often misshapen from overfiring. The sane kind of white slip as at Chincha is used in the Anc6n and Chancay styles as an over-all base for decoration, and, as at Chincha, some of the vessels from Ancén and Chancay have no decoration other than the white slip. Although this list of resemblances leaves considerable con- trasts between the Chincha style and the contemporary central coast styles, the resemblances are sufficiently striking to suggest a historical relationship, This conclusion becomes especially meaning- ful when this list of features is checked against the Ica style; none of them appear in the Ica tradition. VII. The post-Chincha assenblage VIIA, The sites and sample Figures 59-79 illustrate pottery of the post-Chincha assemblage. Post-Chincha burials were excavated by Uhle at Sites C and E, where Chincha style burials were also found, as well as at Site F, where no Chincha style burials have been recorded. Site F was located on the seaward slopes of the northern terrace of Chincha, an undetermined distance north of Site B, Uhle also collected some unassociated specimens at Site D. Site D is an ancient mound called the Huaca de Alvarado, datable to the Early Horizon. Paracas and Nasca style refuse ig associated with the structure. The mound is located on the flood plain of the river, about one kilometer south of La Centinela. Chincha and post-Chincha burials in the form of rectangular chanbers had been cut into the walls of the mound and had been looted by grave robbers, Uhle collected six vessels from the backdirt of these looted burials, as yell as other objects, which are described by Kroeber and Strong.? Uhle also made a collection of pottery fragments from the refuse around La Centizela,‘0 Ute excavated 18 post-Chincha burials at Sites C, E and F, con- taining together 55 vessels and two pottery figurines. ‘wo of the unassociated specimens from Site D are also attributable to the post-109 Chincha assemblage and are included in our sample. Five of the burials containing 17 pottery vessels are from Site C (C-1, 2, 3, 4, 5), nine of the burials with 33 vessels and two figurines are from Site E (E-5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18), and three of the burials with five vessels are from Site F (F-4, 5, 6). Most of the burials con- tained from one to seven vessels each, but Burial E-13 contained 15 vessels. The reason is that Burial B-13 was not a single interment but consisted of a group, of five individuals buried in a single burial chamber. The pottery was grouped in five separate clusters. Three of these clusters appeared in clear association with a particular body. Une does not state body association for the two remaining clusters. Each pottery cluster contained from one to seven vessels, like the pottery groups in single burials. Although Burial E~13 was the only post-Chincha burial with more than one interment, there are two other groups of post-Chincha burials where two or more burial chambers were connected by passage- ways and formed a single unit of associations. They probably repre- sent an alternative way of making multiple interments. One of these burial groups includes Burials C-3, C-4 and C-5, and the other includes Burials F-S and F-6. Uble did not record a comparable example of multiple interments for the Chincha style burials. VIIB. Technology, Firing color, paste, temper and surface finish vary considerably with the different styles that make up the post-Chincha assemblage. A detailed study of these technological differences should be made eventually. Some of the technological differences are described below. Post-Chincha vessels as a group lack the consistent overfiring that characterizes vessels of the Chincha style. ‘As in the Chincha style, there is a conspicuous difference between fancy ware and utility ware in paste, temper, firing and surface finish. Utility bowls resemble Chincha style ones in these features, while the utility jars have a more orange colored paste. VIIC. Post-Chincha fancy ware (Appendix A, 5). VIIC1. Chincha tradition remains. The most striking aspect of the post-Chincha assemblage is the fact that the burials contain almost no pottery of the Chincha tradi- tion. Only one specimen, a figurine, is entirely in the Chincha style and indistinguishable from other Chincha style figurines (5.1). It is probably an heirloom. Six additional pottery specimens show relationship to the Chincha style. I am calling these specimens Derived Chincha, because all of them are distinguishable from specimens in the Chincha style sample (5.2). Three of the Derived Chincha vessels are plain miniatures, two miniature complex rim bowls (5.2.1.2) and one miniature high ovoid jar (5.2.1.1). No miniature examples of complex rim bowls are present in110 the Chincha style sample, but in other respects these bowls have Chincha style features. The miniature high ovoid jar differs from the Chincha ones proper in having lugs at the base of the neck instead of vertical strap handles on the shoulder (Kroeber and Strong, 192Ha, fig. 9b). ‘There are only two vessels of regular size which show relation- ship to the Chincha style. One is a plain slipped collared olla with maize ear appliqués. The low, tapering collar differs from the higher, flaring collars of Chincha collared jars, and the vessel has a smaller mouth and slightly different body contours than Chincha collared jars (5.2.3). The surface of the olla is very smooth and glossy, with a fine grained, bright orange slip. Such fine grained slipping is characteristic of Inca pottery and does not appear in the Chincha style proper. The other regular sized Derived Chincha vessel is a blackware jar of the tradition of squat ovoid jars with shoulder handles (5.2.2). The principal difference between this vessel and ‘the corresponding Chincha style ones is that the Derived Chincha jar has a broad, horizontally everted rin with a vertically flattened lip, both features representing Inca influence of a kind also appearing in other coastal styles of this period. A variant of the same rim form is shown in the imitation Ica Inca vesse) illustrated in fig. 76. There is one figurine with a mixture of Chincha tradition and innovating features which can also be described as Derived Chincha (5.2.4). It resembles Chincha figurines in its standing position, body contours and top of the head features. However, there are also con- siderable differences, especially in the eye form, the position of the lower arms, the face contours, the depiction of large ear plugs and a necklace, and the surface finish which is an unpigmented, well polished dark orange-red clay color (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 14 bottom right), The necklace has an incised design on a bandlike surface out- Lined by incision, the design being ike the designs found on Pachi eamac Inca pottery (see below), It is apparent that the appearance of this figurine owes mich to foreign influence. A very similar figurine was found by Unle at Pachacamac (Uhle, 1903, fig. 87). VIIC2. Foreign styles Most of the rest of post-Chincha fancy ware consists of vessels of foreign styles. The foreign styles represented are the Inca style, the Pachacamac Inca style, other kinds of central to north coast styles, the Chima style, the Ica Inca style, the Ica 9 style, and a vessel category which I am calling South Coast Inca to indicate that it has a widespread distribution from Chincha to Acari. Most of the foreign style pottery is probably of local manufacture, but it is possible that some of the specimens related to the Pachacamac and central to north coast styles may have been imported. The imitation Inca style (Appendix A, 5.3), Twelve vessels are imitation Inca ones. They were found in six Site E burials. Six of the vessels are tall-necked jars with a pointed bottom and two vertical strap handles on the lower body (5.3.1; fig. 59). This is a common Inca form which Bingham called "aryballos" (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. la-f). No matter how memorable, however, this term should not be usedan because it represents a misleading analogy with a Greek pottery form. Rowe called this form Shape A.11 ‘The examples from Chincha are all small and of a relatively uniform height from 15.5 to 20.2 centimeters. one is of smoked blackware, one is unpainted plainware with an ap- pliqué serpent coiled around its neck and body, and the rest are painted with Cuzco Inca designs in abbreviated form. On one specimen, the design is a textile design found on woven Inca shirts rather than an Inca pottery design (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. le). Four other Inca jars belong in a different shape category (5.3.2; fig. 60). ‘They differ from the tall-necked jars with pointed bottom in having a shorter, wider neck, flat bottom and single handle in the upper part of the body, Their size range is approximately the same as that of the tall-necked jars. This is Rowe's Shape C,1? Three of the vessels in this group have a body handle in the form of a vertical loop, and one has it in the form of a horizontal loop. Both handle forms are straps. ‘Two of the vessels are of smoked black- ware, and two are painted, one with a standard Cuzco Inca design, and the other with a local variant of a Cuzco Inca design. A third Inca jar variant is a tall-necked form with a flat bottom and a long vertical strap handle from lip to body (5.3.3; fig. 61). It too has a standard Cuzco Inca design (Kroeber and Strong, 192ha, fig. 3c). Its size is within the sane small range as that of the other imitation Inca jars. Both in size and contours the imitation Inca jars from Chincha, particularly the tall-necked ones with pointed bottom, are like corresponding imitation Inca vessels from Pachacanac. This observa- tion is important, because the imitation Inca jars from Ica differ in size range, contours and decoration. Particularly worth noting is the homogeneous size range and small degree of variation in contours in the Chincha and Pachacamac vessels, in contrast to the ones from Ica. The principal difference between the vessels from Pachacamac and those fron Chincha is that the great majority of those from Pachacamac is of smoked blackware, It is very possible that the imitation Inca vessels from Chincha are not independent Jocal imitations of Cuzco Inca models, but reproductions of imitations standardized at Pachacamac, or variants of Pachacamac forms with locally adapted decoration. The only other Inca vessel from Chincha found in burial associations is an Inca cooking pot (5.3.53 fig. 62). An imitation Inca plate was found among the remains from looted burials at Site D (5.3.4; fig. 63). The loop handle on the plate is one of ‘the most common handle forms on Inca plates from the coast. Another characteristic late Inca handle form turned up in refuse at La Centinela (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. Je; see note 10). Most imitation Inca vessels from Chincha have a glossy, smooth finish and even firing color, Pigments on painted vessels resemble Cuzco Inca ones. However, oxidized vessels have a more orange cast than Cuzco Inea ones, and the white pigment on sone of112 ‘the simpler designs has a chalky appearance, unlike Inca white and similar to traditional Chincha white. The Pachacamac Inca style (Appendix A, 5.4). The term "Pacha— camac Inca” designates pottery vessels consisting of a combination of imitation Inca features and features of local invention, combined in forms not found in the Cuzco Inca style. These vessel have their center of distribution at Pachacamac. The most distinctive Pachacamac Inca vessels are small bottles of very fine, glossy, thin walled smoked blackware. There are also other shapes, most of them of smoked black ware, which belong to this group. The archaeology of Pachacamac is not sufficiently known to make a complete definition or analysis of ‘the Pachacamac Inca style. These shapes appear to constitute a prestige item at home and abroad. Pachacamac Inca pottery from Pacha- camac is illustrated by Unle (1903, figs. 67-71, 74, pl. 13-2, 13). There are five fancy Pachacamac Inca bottles from four of the post-Chincha burials at Site E (5.4.1; fig. 64), These bottles have an ovoid body with a broad, flat bottom merging with the sides in a smooth kip curve. The handle is a vertical strap or fillet in the form of a loop on the upper part of the body. The strap loop is an Inca feature; the use of the fillet is a coastal modification. There usually is a small appliqué nub on the side opposite the handle. The position of this nub is in imitation of Cuzco Inca nubs. The bottles also have a narrow appliqué band around the base of the neck, an original coastal feature found on late period vessels from Pachacamac to the north coast. The neck band and handle are conmonly decorated with incised designs. There is no evidence that resin paint was used in the incisions A locally modified variant of Pachacamac Inca bottles was found in one of the burials at Site C (5.4.1.1), It appears to be a local copy of Pachacamac Inca bottles. The other Pachacamac Inca bottles could have been imported from Pachacamac, although it is also possible that they were made locally. Another post-Chincha vessel category which may be called Pachacamac Inca is an imitation Inca jar of smoked blackware (5.4.25 fig. 65), It is an anthropomorphic faceneck jar in the shape category of tall-necked Inca jars with pointed bottom, It is distinguished from Cuzco Inca jars in having arms and hands represented on the body by means of appliqué strips (at Pachacamac alternatively also by incisions), and in having a humped back probably indicating a burden. The Chincha vessel has a glossy surface finish, like other Pachacamac Inca and imitation Inca vessels. Faceneck jars in various shape categories are present as a minority form in the Cuzco Inca style also, but the combination of smoked blackware, a humped back and the repre- sentation of arms on the body, together with the high degree of standardization in small size and contours, creates a coastal form which has its center of distribution at Pachacamac. A specimen with similar anthropomorphic features, though in a different jar category, was found at Machu Picchu and is illustrated by Eaton (1916, pl. XIII-4) and Bingham (1930, fig. 111). Bingham refers to this specimenus as a coastal variant of the Inca style and says that no other examples were found at Machu Picchu. Central to north coast styles (Appendix A, 5.5). In addition to Pachacamac Thea pottery, there are various other vessel categories in the post-Chincha assemblage which show a close relationship to pottery recorded from the central coast and farther north. Since there is very little information on provenience and none on associations for collections from these areas, it is not possible to specify at this point where some of these vessel forms originate. However, several of ‘them have been recorded at Pachacamac, and it is reasonable to assume that their presence at Chincha is due to Pachacamac influence. Most of these vessels have no Inca features in shape or design. One such vessel is a jar with a football shaped body (5.5.15 fig. 74). The vessel is of smoked blackware, with a fine, glossy finish, The maize ear appliqués are Chincha tradition ones, and the rim and lip profile of the neck also have Chincha tradition features. However, the shape is foreign to the Chincha tradition, Jars with a similar body shape are among late period vessels collected in 1959 by Ernesto E, Tabio at the Hacienda Congén in the Huarmey valley north of Lima (Site H-58) and deposited at the Museum of Archaeology of the University of San Marcos in Lima. The specimen from Chincha is decorated with an incised bird design without resin paint. Most of the central to north coast vessels at Chincha are bottles with a body in the form of a fruit or tuber (5.5.2). All of these vessels are oxidized fired and painted. The painted decoration consists of features designed to help depict the particular fruit that is represented. Vessels with bodies in the form of a fruit or tuber are remarkably common among 1ats period pottery on the central, north-central and north coast. The examples at Pachacamac and Chincha probably reflect influence from farther north. For comparison, see especially Tello, 1938, pls. 90-114. Several vessels with a fruit shaped body, usually decorated by press molding and made of smoked blackware, are among the pottery collected by Tabfo in the Huarmey Valley. Some of these vessels have Inca shape features. Nine vessels with bodies in the form of a fruit or tuber were found in seven post-Chincha burials at Sites C and E. ‘Wo examples have a drop shaped body in horizontal position, with a peduncle indicated at the broad end (5.5.2.1; fig. 70). The painted decoration consists of horizontal stripes in purple and white (Kroeber and Strong, 1924, fig. 94). This form has a simple bottle neck and single strap handle from neck to body in the manner of Chincha and Ica bottles. These bottles are relatively large (is to 25 centimeters high). An identical specimen was collected by Unle at Pachacamac,19 and another, similar example from Pacha- camac is illustrated in Uble's report on Pachacamac (Unle, 1903, pl, 19-14).a A second fruit shaped form resenbles the first in body contours and striping, but the body is in vertical position (5.5.2.2). These bottles are smaller than the horizontally placed ones. One of the speci- mens has neck and handle shape and body decoration like those of the first category (§.5.2.2.1). The second one, however, is more elaborate, the body being lobed as well as painted with stripes, and it has an Inca style neck and Inca handle (5.5.2.2.2; fig. 72). This latter specinen has also more careful shaping, thinner walls, brighter firing and a much finer finish than the rest of the fruit shaped vessels. The com bination of Inca and local features suggests that this vessel might be grouped with coastal Inca vessels. The example is unique, however, and no counterpart from Pachacamac or elsewhere has been recorded, so that its origin and meaning are not evident. No other vessels were found in association with this specimen. A third fruit shaped bottle form is represented by three speci- meng (5.5.2.3; fig. 69). It falls within the same size range as the striped fruit vessels in horizontal position. It differs from the latter in having slightly different, though also asymmetric, body contours longer in one axis than in the. other. The body decoration consists of dots painted in black on white or white on purple (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, figs. 4d, 9a). One of these vessels has a neck and handle like the horizontally striped fruit bottles (5.5.2.3.1). The other two have a very distinctive complex neck with a dish shaped top, and a fillet handle instead of a strap (5.5.2.3.2). A fourth fruit shaped vessel has a body in the form of a modeled squash, covered with a purple slip (5.5.2.4), This vessel has the same complex bottle neck and fillet handle as the spotted fruit bottles. The last example of vessels in this category is a bottle with a body in the shape of a potato (5.5.2.5; fig. 73). The bottle neck on this vessel differs from the other simple bottle necks in being much longer and narrower. The vessel has a regular strap bottle handle. A brown slip and red spots marking the eyes of the potato complete the representational features. fn almost identical specimen was found by Uble at Pachacamac.14 The specimen from Pachacamac differs from the Chincha one only in being made of smoked blackware and in having a vertical Inca loop handle on the upper body. Another bottle from Pachacamac belonging to this category is illustrated by Uhle in his report on Pachacamac (Uhle, 1903, pl. 13-15). Also to be included with the vessels related to the central to north coast styles is a jar form which may be described as coastal Inca (5.5.3; fig. 71), Its body is composed of imitation Inca features combined with non-Inca features, The imitation Inca features are recognized in the flat bottom and low hip, which resemble the corres- ponding features of Inca flat bottomed jars (cf. fig. 60), and in the curve of the body above the hip and the vertical strap handles, which resemble the corresponding features on Inca tall-necked jars with pointed bottom (cf. fig. 59). The position of the handles is on the shoulder rather than above the hip, and the body proportions also differ from those of Cuzco Inca vessels. The neck is a simple hyper-us boloid one which does not resemble any Inca form, The same vessel form with some modeled features and an appliqué band at the base of the neck is illustrated by Tello (Tello, 1938, pl. 92, left). The piece shown by Tello has no provenience, but its modeled features, combined with the blackware firing, proclaim it to be from the area from Pachacanac on north. Necks of sinilar shape with incised appligué strips at the base were collected by Tabfo in the Huarmey valley.1° The jar fron Chincha is oxidized fired and decorated with worm-like painted designs on the upper body (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. ¥e). With the exception of the football shaped jar and the lobed, striped fruit bottle with Inca neck and handle, post-Chincha vessels related to the central to north coast styles lack the fine glossy finish and careful firing of the imitation Inca and Pachacamac Inca vessels, The firing color is sonetimes @ grayish orange, and the slips lack the smoothness, gloss and precise outlines of the imita- tion Inca decoration. The pigments, especially the dark purple and white, are reminiscent of the corresponding Chincha pigments, although the purple lacks the silvery particles that mark the specular hena- tite of Chincha purple. Bottles with complex necks show more care in manufacture than bottles with simple necks. The Chima style (Appendix A, 5.6). The Chimu style is repre- sented byte vessels from post-Chincha burials. One {3 the stirrup spout bottle shown in fig. 66, which has some non-Chimu features in the spout and body contours. ‘The other is the animal headed bottle shown in fig. 67, a piece that could be a northern inport, Neither of these pieces has the careful shaping and glossy finish that distinguish Pachacamac Inca and imitation Inca pottery. Imitation Ica Inca pottery (Appendix A, 5.7). Three vessels from three post chincha buses ot Sites C and B are imitations of Ica Inca style vessels of Ica (figs. 75, 76, 78). ‘The Ica Inca style is a prestige style of Ica, consisting of three vessel forms of local invention composed of a combination of traditional Ica and Cuzco Inca features standardized into distinctive shapes. Vessels in this group have a careful finish, and two of the shapes, the drum bottles and lamp bottles, have special fancy decoration composed of a combination of Ica and Inca features. At Ica this pottery is found exclusively or almost exclusively as a prestige item in burials of distinguished individuals of the local nobility. It ia not generally found in the Poorer burials of the local style, or in burials where authentic foreign forms, such as Cuzco Inca and Chimu ones, predominate, Ica Inca pottery also had great prestige outside of Ica; it was imitated regularly in neighboring south coast valleys and occasionally as far as Cuzco and Lake Titicaca. The Ica Inca vessels from Chincha can be recognized as imita- tions rather than imports by their orange hued paste, matte surface finish, and local variants of Ica decoration, The shape of the drum bottle from Chincha is within the range of variation of Ica Inca érum bottles from Ica (5.7.1; fig. 78; for an example from Ica, see fig. 63). Tae lamp bottle from Chincha shown in fig. 75 (5.7.2)116 resembles the Ica Inca ones proper very closely (for an example from Ica, see fig. 80). However, the bottle from Chincha is larger than any example from Ica, and it has a more traditional bottle handle from neck to body instead of the body loop handle. This substitution also occurs at times at Ica, however. The bottle from Chincha has an imitation Ica 9 design instead of an imitation Ica Inca one. The drum and lamp bottles are the most prestigious Ica Inca forms at Ica, and only they are decorated with special Ica Inca designs. Both the specimens from Chincha were found in Site E burials. The Ica Inca bottles from Yea shown in figs. 81 and 82 belong to a single, variable shape category which is found in less prestigious contexts than the drum bottles and lamp bottles. They have less care- ful shaping and surface finish, and the decoration is the less presti- gious Ica 9 one of the local tradition rather than the Ica Inca one. Although less prestigious than the other two forms, this Ica Inca bottle category is also found in tonbs of moderately wealthy individuals of the local nobility. The example from Chincha (5.7.3) shown in fig. 76 has its closest resemblance to the specimen from Ica shown in fig. 82. The Chincha specimen is from a Site C burial. Imitation Ica 9 pottery (Appendix A, 5.8). I am calling the Ica pottery of the Late Horizon which continues the tradition of the native Ica style Ica Phase 9. It is found commonly as refuse pottery in ordinary occupation sites, unlike Inca and Ica Inca pottery, and it occurs regularly in the poorer, unstructured Late Horizon burials of the ordinary people of Ica. One of the most common Ica 9 forms is the dish from Ica illustrated in fig. 85, A dish that falls within the range of variation of Ica 9 dishes was found in one of the post- Chincha burials from Site E (fig. 77). The specimen from Chincha is of smoked blackware and is decorated with incised Ica 9 decoration, just like many of the Ica 9 dishes (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 55 for examples of the same dish from Ica, see Kroeber and Strong, 1924b, pls. 38], 40f), As in the Ica 9 designs, the incisions on the dish from Chincha are filled with resin paint. The surface finish, shaping and Firing of both the Ica 9 dish from Chincha and Ica 9 pottery from Ica are much less careful and painstaking than the corresponding features in Ica Inca vessels from Ica, or of Pacha- camac Inca vessels. South Coast Inca pottery (Appendix A, 5.9). South Coast Inca pottery consists exclusively of shallow plates, Like other coastal Inca forms, these plates are made up of a combination of Inca and non-Inca features in distinctive regional compositions. The concave bottom and exterior beveled rim on the specimen from Chincha shown in fig. 79 have antecedents in the Chincha style. The body contours of South Coast Inca plates resemble Inca plate bodies (for comparison, see figs. 63, 86). There are two South Coast Inca plates in Burial C-5. Both the examples from Chincha are oxidized fired and painted (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 9f). The decoration on the plate illustrated by Kroeber and Strong has no immediate antecedents at Chincha and is reminiscent of designs on cumbrous bowls of the Middle Horizon. The other specimen from Chincha is covered with a plain47 purple slip. For a very similar form from Ica, made of smoked blackware, see fig. 87. At Ica South Coast Inca plates are found both in wealthy burials and, in fragmentary form, in ordinary refuse. South Coast Inca plates are most common in the Acar{ and Nasca valleys. Only one speci- men has been recorded north of Chincha, a fragment from the refuse at Pachacamac (Strong and Corbett, 1943, fig. 8a). VIIC3. The Chincha Inca style (Appendix A, 5.10). There is one vessel category which I propose to call Chincha Inca. It is of local origin though it is composed of features of foreign inspiration. This vessel category consists of small bowls of stoked blackware (fig. 68; Kroeber and Strong, 1924, pl. 13a-c). There are three examples in two of the post-Chincha burials From Site Cand one in a burial from Site F, The bowls have a paraboloid bottom, high, angular shoulder, and very shallow curved, abruptly tapering upper sides ending in a narrow mouth. Small, dainty appliqués in very low relief ornament opposite sides of the surface above the shoulder. The appliqués represent various kinds of sea shells. Three of the bowls have a simple, direct rim, but one has an appliqué strip with incised decoration around the rim (fig. 68). It is the same kind of appliqué band that ornaments the base of Pachacamac Inca bottle necks (see above). The bowls are decorated with elaborate incised designs on the surface above the shoulder, These designs are varia- tions of motives that appear in painted form in the Ica Inca style. The designs are filled with resin paint, like the incised designs on smoked blackware of the Ica 9 style (see above). The Chincha Inca bowls are distinguished by their very fine finish, careful, smooth shaping, even black firing and glossy surface. They are the fanciest vessels in the post-Chincha assemblage. No bowls like this have been recorded from Pachacamac or else- where on the coast. The presence of Ica Inca design motives also indicates that this vessel category cannot be a faithful copy of a Pachacamac vessel category. However, bowls of similar shape, also made of smoked blackware, are a standard vessel form at Pachacamac and also appear farther north on the coast, The bowls from Pacha- camac are about twice as large as the bowls from Chincha, they have a round rather than angular shoulder, and they have an only moderately careful finish and shaping and are thicker walled. The bowls from Pachacamac are not decorated with incised designs, but are either plain or have two small press molded figures in the sides. Some have appliqué maize ear lugs, and others have large, vertical loop handles instead. It is possible that the shape of the Chincha Inca bowls is a variation of the Pachacamac bowl shape. The fancy finish of the bowls and use of blackware suggests an analogy with the Pachacamac Inca bottles. ‘The designs indicate that the Ica Inca elite style, as well as the Ica 9 style, were also sources of inspiration in the composition of the Chincha bowls. The eclectic selection of features, their original composition, and the fancy finish all suggest com- parison with Late Horizon prestige ware of other coastal areas.us Chincha Inca bowls appear to have fulfilled a similar function at Chincha as the Ica Inca style did at Ica or the Pachacamac Inca style at Pacha- camac. Kroeber and Strong called the Chincha Inca bowls "yarn bovis" because the specimen from Burial F-4 was filled with yarn. VITCH, Various (Appendix A, 5.11). There are five vessels in the post-Chincha collection which have no Chincha style antecedents and do not resemble known vessels in any other style. All are jars of small to miniature size. Three are minia- ture jars with an irregularly shaped body merging into a narrow, medium high jar neck by a smooth, inflected curve. One of these vessels is a single chambered form with a design reminiscent of Ica 9 decoration (5.11.1), and the other two are plain slipped double chambered vessels of extremely small size (5,11.2; Kroeber and Strong, 1924, fig. 10a, >). The second category of these vessels consists of two anthropo- morphic jars with a face neck and body features incised and modeled in low relief (5.11.3; Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, pl. 13d, ¢). One of ‘these is of plainware and the other of smoked blackware. All five of these vessels are from burials at Sites C and F. VIICS. Decoration There are considerable differences in the uses of colors between post-Chincha and Chincha style fancy ware. It is not possible to dis- cuss these features of the post-Chincha assemblage as a single unit, since different styles are involved. References to contrasting features have been made already in the preceding sections. The Chincha color pattern is out of style in painted decoration, and there is no example of the use of Chincha purple as it appears in the Chincha style. The dark purple used in the stripes on fruit bottles and the slip on the modeled squash bottle has approximately the same hue as Chincha purple, but it lacks the silvery particles found on most areas of the Chincha purple pigment. White is still used as a ground color in some contexts on central to north coast and imitation Ica Inca vessels, but the designs are line or dot designs in plain black which are unrelated to Chincha tradition designs. Besides the dark maroon- purple a slightly lighter purplish red with a streaky appearance is used. ‘This pigment appears in Late Horizon associations all along the south coast and evidently represents Inca influence. A lighter orange red appears on the striped fruit bottle with an Inca style neck and handle (5,5.2.2.2). Slips on imitation Inca, Pachacamac Inca and Chincha Inca vessels are smooth and dense and have a mich more fine grained appearance than Chincha style slips. This fine grained slipping also appears occasionally on other vessel forms, such as the plain slipped Derived Chincha collared olla (5.2.3), the South Coast Inca plates (5.9), and the lobed, striped fruit bottle (5.5.2.2.2). On the other hand, slips on most of the fruit shaped bottles, especially the white slip,us have the coarser grained appearance of Chincha slips. The same kind of coarser grained slipping is found on the imitation Ica Inca drum bottle and lamp bottle (5.7.1, 5.7.2). It is evident that we are dealing with different styles and different workshops employing different tech- nigues. A most stimulating study of the relationships of these teck- niques could be made of this material. VIID. Post-Chincha utility ware (Appendix A, 6). Three utility ware vessels were found in the post-Chincha burials excavated by Uhle. One is 2 jar with-a complex, dish shaped neck and bumplike protrusions on the body surface (6.1).” This vessel is sooted from use in cooking. An almost identical jar was found in the back- dirt of the looted burials at Site D. The latter jar was covered with a dark orange slip, while the jar from the Site E burial was covered with a dark red slip. Both jars lack polish. A specimen of very similar shape was found by Unle at Pachacamac (Uhle, 1903, fig. 85). Two other utility vessels are bowls with tvo horizontal strap handles at opposite sides of. the rim and a dark red slip covering the interior surface and the exterior rim of the body (6.2). These bowls resemble the earlier Chincha utility bowls in their relatively broad, shallow proportions. Like the Chincha bowls, the post-Chincha ones are not Sooted from use in cooking. VIIE, Refuse pottery from La Centinela Refuse pottery from the area of La Centinela, where the princi- pal Inca administrative structures were located, contained a variety of Inca style fragments not found in the burials.!7 Included among them is an oversized Cuzco Inca jar with a long neck and pointed bottom (shape as in fig. 59). Oversized vessels such as this are very rare on the coast and do not appear in burials. They are, how- ever, relatively common in refuse at important highland Inca sites. There are also fragnents of a high sided variant of a dish shaped Cuzco Inca vessel which Rowe calls Shape F.18 High sided variants of this form are not found ordinarily in coastal refuse. Another La Centinela refuse form not recorded from coastal burials or other kinds of refuse sites is a Cuzco Inca plate with a concave curvature in the lower surface of the sides and two sets of lip lugs in place of a handle and lug.19 Designs in the category of Urcusuyu Poly- chrome are another feature not found at most other Late Horizon sites on the coast but present among the refuse fragments at La Centinela. One plate in the refuse is decorated with a Qoripata Polychrome design, an Inca design rarely found in coastal sites north of Acarf.20 The handle of an imitation Inca plate of smoked blackware from the La Centinela refuse is illustrated by Kroeber and Strong (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. 9e; see note 10), Although shape and decora- tive features such as the Cuzco Inca ones mentioned above do not ordinarily appear in coastal Inca refuse, a large amount of similar refuse has been collected at Pachacanac. ‘1120 Among the refuse fragments from La Centinela there is also one fragment of Chimu blackware with press molded decoration. It is part of a bottle or jar body, and is distinguished by its fine manufacture, evenly thinned walls, and glossy finish. ‘Two other fragments of jar necks of smoked blackware are of the Late Horizon styles of Pachacamac and neighboring areas to the north (Kroeber and Strong, 1924a, fig. lla, bs see note 16), Both the necks have appliqué strips with incised decoration at their base, an ornamentation also found on Pacha- camac Inca bottles. However, the refuse fragments differ from Pacha- camac Inca pottery in being larger, thicker walled, less carefully shaped and fired, with different shape features and a matte finish. These fragments are evidently not attributable to the same kind of fancy elite ware that is represented by the Pachacamac Inca bottles. VIII. The pattern of associations in post-Chincha burials (Appendix B) The presence of imitation Inca and Inca-associated pottery in the post-Chincha burials shows that the beginnings of this assemblage must date to the main part of the Late Horizon or Inca occupation period on the south coast. The presence of Venetian glass beads of the beginning part of the Colonial Period in two of the pottery containing burials, £-13 and F-4, on the other hand, shows that the post-Chincha assemblage persisted into the early years after the Spanish conquest. Except for the presence of these glass beads, and a possible iron fragment and fragment of red painted leather or felt in Burial E-13, there is no evidence of European influence in these burials. The persistence of the Late Horizon stylistic assemblage without perceptible change into the early years after the Spanish conquest is reasonable, and comparable to the persistence of the Chincha style into the early years after the Inca conquest. In contrast to the Chincha style burials, post-Chincha ones show no evidence of having contained shape categories in sets. How- ever, different kinds of regularities appear which distinguish the contents of the post-Chincha burials of Site E, on the one hand, and those of Sites C and F, on the other. Kroeber and Strong also ob- served these contrasts, and made them the subject of a stimulating discussion. 23 Kroeber and Strong observed that all the imitation Inca vessels came from the Site E burials, and therefore they called only these burials "Inca." They used the term "Inca" to represent both a stylistic affiliation with the Cuzco Inca style, and a time period, presumably that of the Inca occupation at Chincha, As a result, they also referred to vessels of non-Inca styles as "Inca," insofar as these vessels were found regularly in association with imitation Inca ones. They found that Burials 1-5 at Site C and Burials 4-6 at Site F contained pottery not found in the Site E burials, particularly the Chincha Inca bowls (their "yarn bowls"). On the other hand, the Site C and F burials contained no imitation Inca vessels. Kroeber and Strong came to the conclusion that these contrasts must represent chronological differences. Since the121. Site C and F burials contained more pottery reminiscent of the local tradition, and the Site E burials more pottery of the Inca one, they concluded that the former must represent an earlier time period than the latter, and that stylistically the former must be transitional between the Chincha and Inca styles. They proposed to call the Site ¢ and F assemblages "Late Chincha II" to indicate what they saw as their relationship to the Chincha tradition, and the Site E assemblages "Inca." Kroeber and Strong recognized that "Late Chincha II" burials, as well as "Inca" ones, had European glass beads associated with them, so that no actual tine difference could be involved in the burials found by Uhle, In seeking an explanation that would never- theless fit their hypothesis that the two groups represented chrono- logical differences, they proposed that foreigners from Cuzco and local people could have lived side by side for at least a generation or two, maintaining their cultural differences. The "Late Chincha II" gravelots represented the more traditional element of the population which was gradually dying out under Inca influence and being replaced by new-comers. Vessels like the “yarn bowls" represented transi- tional forms between the native Chincha tradition and the Inca one. Kroeber and Strong also considered the possibility that the multiple burials represented family plots used over a period of tine and as a result contained styles representing different periods of manu- facture.24 Kroeber and Strong did not consider the possibility that the different kinds of pottery were of contemporary origin at Chincha, and that the contrasts in style and composition of the burial contents could have represented exclusively differences in social status, occupation or political affiliation in the same population, and not chronological differences. This, however, is the interpretation of the data which I am proposing. The evidence of associations of independent style features on the sane vessel and different vessels in the same burial is such that no other interpretation is possible. Designs on Chincha Inca bowls, and the South Coast Inca plates and an imitation Ica Inca bottle in the "Late Chincha II" burials, all originate with the Inca occupation period at Ica and have no earlier antecedents, These burials therefore cannot antedate the Inca occupation any more than Kroeber and Strong's "Inca" burials can. What is more, the evidence from the Chincha style burials shows that the "Late Chincha II" burials mist originate well after the Inca conquest, because most of their Chincha tradition contents show stylistic modifications which are not found in Chincha style pottery associated with Inca and Ica 9 pottery that must date to the early years after the Inca conquest. The Site E cemetery is the one closest to ia Centinela, where ‘the main part of the Inca administrative center was located. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that it is this cemetery that con- tained the burials showing the closest relationship to the Inca culture and system. This need not mean that the individuals buried there were foreigners. It probably does mean, however, that all the122 individuals were closely associated with the functions and prestige system of the Inca administration. If we study the contents of these burials, we find that E-5, E-7, E-9, E-ll, 5-13 Groups 1 and 2, and E-14 contained imitation Inca pottery. Furthermore, certain other styles are regularly found in association. Thus, E-11 and E-13 Group 1 also contained Chimu style vessels; E-9, E-12, E-13 Group 2, E-13 Body 3 and E-15 also contained Pachacamac Inea vessels; E-1l, B-13 Group 1, E-13 Body 3 and E-18 contained central to north coast vessels, notably the spotted and modeled fruit and tuber bottles, and also the football shaped jar; £-13 Group 1 and E-15 contained imita- tion Ica Inca vessels; and E-18 contained an Ica 9 vessel. Derived Chincha vessels are practically but not entirely absent from these burials: E-7 contained a miniature Derived Chincha complex rim bowl. That the Site E cemetery was a special one with close ties to the Inca administrative center is also brought out by the contrast between its burials and those of Sites C and F. The Site C and F burials are very similar to each other in content, despite the fact that they mist be a considerable distance apart and on different sides of the Site E cemetery. Since Sites C and F are not in the inmediate vicinity of La Centinela, they probably represent the more common burial pattern of the Chincha valley in the later part of the Late Horizon and the early Colonial Period, while the Site E cemetery represents a special one closely connected with the administrative personnel of the empire. The Site C and F burials contain almost all ‘the Derived Chincha pottery, all the Chincha Inca bowls, and a22 the vessels of undetermined origin which show no relationship to the Inca and Inca-associated styles. The presence of the Chincha Inca bowls in these burials is particularly significant, for these bowls are evidently luxury items and outrank all other vessels in the post- Chincha collection in fineness and expertise of manufacture. They are also the most original vessel form in the post-Chincha assemblage. They are undoubtedly a prestige item, but one that is unconnected with the people buried at the Site E cemetery. There are other contrasts between the Site E burials, on the one hand, and those of Sites C and F, on the other. For example, the Site C and F burials contain almost all the striped fruit bottles, while the Site E burials contain almost all the spotted fruit bottles. This contrast could be accidental, of course. The fact that there was no systematic exclusion of these forms from the respective burials is shown by the presence of a spotted fruit bottle in Burial -3, On the other hand, if we examine the only Site E burial con- taining a striped fruit bottle, Burial E-6, we find that the nature of its contents differs from that of the other Site E burials and resembles the contents of the burials at Sites C and F. It lacks imitation Inca and Inca-associated pottery of the kind found in the other Site E burials, and instead contains the only Chincha style pottery object in the post-Chincha assemblage, a figurine; it also contains a Derived Chincha figurine and a utility jar. Burial E-6 thus resembles the Site C and F burials mre than the other Site E ones, In view of this additional evidence the use of striped fruit bottles may actually be largely or entirely confined to this kind123 of burial and may have a special meaning. The contents of Burial E-6 also suggest that although most of the people buried at Site E were involved with the administration of the empire, others were also buried ‘there whe belonged in the range of status and position held by the general population of Chincha at this time, Differences in position and function are brought out by a variety of other contrasts between most of the Site E burials and those of Sites C and F. For example, the imitation Ica Inca bottle found in Burial C-5 differs significantly from the tvo imitation Ica Inca bottles from Burials E-13 Group 2 and E-15. The latter two are imitations of the most distinguished elite ware of Ica, found in the most presti- gious burials of the Ica nobility, while the former, though also a prestige item at Ica, appears in associations indicating a slightly inferior rank, All three forms are closely associated with the Inca occupation at Ica. The contrasting associations in the Chincha burials thus probably are an indication of the lesser status of the Site C and F burials in terms of the Inca politica? system. The presence of the Chincha Inca bowls in the Site C and F burials suggests, however, that the Inca political system was not the only prestige system pre- vailing in the valley, and that another one existed which was inde- pendent of, and quite possibly in rivalry or potential rivalry to the official Inca one. Another important contrast is that all the Pachacamac Inca vessels proper appear in the Site E burials. While a bottle in this category is also present in Burial C-3, it is a variant with unique shape peculiarities which proclaim it to be a local imitation. It is clear that the status of the individuals buried at Site E was not only closely linked with the Inca system, but also with the prestige system of Pachacanac. The two prestige systems evidently were remarkably closely joined at Chincha. Links with the area to the north in general are also more strongly represented in the Site E burials than in the Site C and F ones. Kroeber and Strong bring out other important contrasts between the Site E and Site C and F burials. For example, they point out that the Site E burials which they called "Inca" are in general the richest ones in contents, while the Site C and F or "Late Chincha II" ones are the poorest ones.25 Furthermore, spondylus shell and other fine beads are characteristic of the Site E burials, while such beads are not found in the post-Chincha burials of Sites C and F or in the Chincha style burials of the preceding period.2® spondylus shell is a traditional prestige symbol in Peru and was so used in Inca times. Both the presence of such beads and the rest of the contents of the Site E burials therefore indicate that these burials were those of wealthier and more prestigious individuals than those buried at Sites C and F. Other contrasts are brought out by the presence of artifacts in Site C and F burials and in Burial B-6 which are absent from the other Site E burials. Site E burials lack the variety of small wooden shovels and digging sticks which were found in the Site C124 and F burials, and which must have been used at least in part for agri- cultural work.27 Another important artifact category of Chincha con- sists of small balances and balance beans, probably for weighing metal. Eleven examples of balance beams were found in Burials C-1, 3, 5, F-4, 5 and E-6, but only one small specimen was found in a burial with imi- tation Inca pottery, Burial £-7,28 The presence of the wooden tools and balance beans in the Site C and F burials and their absence or virtual absence from the Site E burials containing imitation Inca and Inca-asseciated pottery suggest that these objects represented occupa- tions of people not directly engaged in the administration of the valley. The burial contrasts also indicate that people engaged in agricultural pursuits and probably metal work, among others, were people who did not rank as highly in the Inca prestige system as the majority of the individuals buried at Site E. In summary, the differences between burials of the post-Chincha assemblage reflect differences in social status and function as they related to the Inca empire. Most of the people buried at the Site E cemetery had far closer ties to the symbols of the Inca empire and Pachacamac than did the individuals buried at Sites C and F. More of the traditional pottery can be found in the latter burials, although such pottery is not common in these burials either. Central to north coast pottery in the form of fruit shaped bottles is a regular item in both sets of burials, although even here some contrasts suggest special selections by each group. Chincha Inca bowls in the Site C and F burials are a non-traditional form inspired by foreign styles, but one that is distinctively local in origin, Their painstaking manufacture and fancy appearance suggest that these bowls were a prestige item, but their absence from the Site E burials indicates that they vere not linked closely with the prestige items associated with the Inca hierarchy. The wooden tools and balance beams in the Site C and F burials indicate that the individuals buried here were active in special occupations which included agriculture and probably metal work. The proximity of the Site E cemetery to La Centinela, together with the contents of the burials, suggests that the people buried here had been particularly active in the administrative work of the Ihca center at Chincha. Although foreign pottery of the Inca, Chitu and Pachacanac styles also dominates the refuse around La Centinela, the refuse remains have a different composition from the contents of the Site E burials. Much of the Inca pottery in the refuse is in the Cuzco Inca style rather than in the coastal imitation Inca one, and it includes a variety of Cuzco Inca shapes and designs that do not occur in the burial assemblage. The Pachacamac style refuse pottery resembles the Pachacamac Inca pottery of the burials in some features, but it is not Pachacamac Inca pottery proper and lacks the fancy shaping and finish of the latter. The composition of the refuse pottery at La Centinela thus furnishes a third unit of associations in the post- Chincha assemblage. This unit contrasts with the two burial patterns and reflects other kinds of uses and meaning, as yet difficult to interpret.125 The pattern of post-Chincha pottery associations gains added significance if it is compared with that of the Chincha style. The occurrence of Chincha burial pottery in shape sets implies as great an interest in practical use and etiquette as in beauty of the pottery. No stylistic differences separate burials of individuals from ceme- teries in different parts of the valley. In contrast, the absence of shape sets from post-Chincha burials indicates that in sone respects the functional aspects of pottery have become of secondary importance; and the stylistic contrasts hetween contemporary burials indicate that pottery has acquired new meanings and has become a symbol of rank, wealth, power, occupation and, possibly, nationalism. As a corollary, we should expect that refuse pottery at ordinary Late Horizon occupation sites at Chincha will turn out to be more similar in composition to the Site C and F burial contents than to the contents of burials and refuse in the inmediate vicinity of La Centinela. Notes *kroeber, 1937, p. 26 Pyenzel, ms. Sunte, 1922, pp.94-95 “keoeber and Strong, 1924a, p. 27 Skroeber and Strong, 1924a, p. 19 ®John H, Rowe has made observations on the nature of the patterns of burial associations in burials of the Chongos style, an earlier style of the Pisco and Chincha valleys. The observations on the study of burial associations made here follow Rowe's lead. Tmhe Chincha "dish" in fig. 30 is not related to the Ica dish tradition. ®knoeber, 1937, pp. 245-246, 253 ®kroeber and Strong, 19244, pl. 1, pp. 8, 28, 51-54 some of the fragments from this refuse collection are marked erroneously as coming from Burial F-6 by Kroeber and Strong; cf. Kroeber and Strong, 192ha, figs. 9, lla, b. M4Rowe, 194, fig. Ba, Rowe, 19NK, fig. Bc 13university Museum, Philadelphia, no, 31125/2399